dist-hg proof-of-concept ready for use

[Jesse Keating]

On Monday 13 November 2006 22:23, David Woodhouse wrote:
> So... if we discount the religious issue of the language it's written
> in, why _would_ we consider using Hg instead of git?
>
> I'd be much happier with git. The recent proliferation of version
> control systems isn't a good thing -- I strongly believe that in general
> we should stick with CVS where it's good (or entrenched) enough, and use
> git for for the rest.

The reasons I have thus far are (in no particular order)

 A) even smaller server footprint than git

 B) a user experience that isn't a complete disaster, leading to multiple 
rewritten front ends that confuse the issue even further

 C) an upstream that is actually willing to listen to our problems and fix 
them or help us to fix them

These are why I feel hg would be a better choice than git, from my experiences 
and talking with other Fedora contributors.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20061113/f75bf38e/attachment.sig>