dist-hg proof-of-concept ready for use

[Kristian Høgsberg]

Jesse Keating wrote:
> 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

If you take a step back and consider the overall user experience, working with 
yet another SCM is a turn for the worse, no matter how nice mercurial is.  And 
for that's what dist-hg will be for me, no other project I work with use 
mercurial but quite a few use git.  I think the same is true for many other 
Fedora/Red Hat/whichever developers.

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

The same is true for the git community, though some issues are part of the 
design and won't be changed (i.e. the index).

cheers,
Kristian