dVCS discussion on emacs development list

[Dustin Sallings]

   Maybe hg is git for people who don't need to see a giant list of  
SHA-1s scroll across their screens to feel smarter.

   The sentiment of that statement is probably true, though.  Git has  
a lot more options at every step, most of which seem to do little more  
than overwhelm users with choices.

   One thing I rather like about hg in comparison to git is how much  
easier it is to share changes.  hgweb provides both a browser  
interface and a protocol interface.  OLPC had public git repos you can  
see, but I can't figure out how to clone because that URL is different.

   hg has import/export, bundle/unbundle, incoming/outgoing and a  
other things that make collaboration easy.  Perhaps I'm just ignorant  
of how to apply git to the situations where I've tried it, but I'd  
settle for git for dummies.

   Is there anything in git that is missing from hg and would be  
important for emacs?

-- 
Dustin Sallings (mobile)

On Jan 2, 2008, at 6:35, dhruva <dhruvakm at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> There is a discussion on finding/proposing a dVCS for the Emacs
> project. If there are any emacs hackers here (working on/with
> mercurial) and wanting to contribute their inputs on dVCS and answer
> questions on mercurial (hg), I request you folks to participate. I do
> not know much of the 'hg' internals when someone compares it with
> other dVCS (there is a post saying mercurial is 'git for dummies'). It
> is a very vague statement and needs some clarity but I am in no
> position to defend/propose strong features in mercurial.
>
> with best regards,
> dhruva
>
> -- 
> Contents reflect my personal views only!
> _______________________________________________
> Mercurial mailing list
> Mercurial at selenic.com
> http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/mercurial
>
>