My experiences with Mercurial

[Milen Dzhumerov]

Hi all,

I just wanted to describe my experiences with Mercurial and let you  
know why we're going to be using subversion for now. The main reasons  
for considering Mercurial were:

1. Distributed model
2. Works on Windows & Unix
3. It's fast

We decided that there was no point _for us_ to deploy Mercurial in a  
centralised fashion - we would then just keep on using subversion. As  
the source which we're tracking is closed, we cannot afford not to  
encrypt the traffic. So really what we need is a simple & secure way  
for the users (developers in this case) to share their changesets.  
"hg serve" seems to fit the definition of simple but not secure. The  
trouble of setting up IIS/Apache and configuring SSL or setting up  
ssh servers on each developer's machine (win & unix) outweighs the  
benefits of using mercurial. We were mainly looking to remove the  
need for the central server.

So my question really is, are the developers looking to incorporate  
SSL into the built-in "hg serve" server? Has the unencrypted (non- 
SSL) built-in server been a problem for anyone else or is it just us?  
We're going back to using subversion because it's much easier for us  
to set up the central server once instead of setting up each client  
to act as a server/client.

Thanks for your attention and time.

Regards,
Milen