RE: Hg for “Source Code” only?

[Pietro Moras]

Your
experience is in line with my current (i.e. provisional) conviction.
That is:   – Strictly speaking (that is:  merging included)
Mercurial is for plain text files only (as any other similar system,
though); – Most (but not all) Mercurial features will work just
fine with most file formats (worth a try) ; – Therefore to
define Mercurial precisely as a “Source Code Management System” could be
considered both fair and prudent.
Other
opinions welcome. Thanks. - P.M.
 Subject: Re: Hg for “Source Code” only?From: raf at durin42.comDate: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 11:09:49 -0400CC: mercurial at selenic.comTo: studio-pm at hotmail.comOn Apr 19, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Pietro Moras <studio-pm at hotmail.com> wrote:Mercurial defines itself precisely as a “Source Code Management System” [see:  Mercurial Command Reference] instead of, say, as a more usual, and generic, “Version Control System”. Fine. I wander if “Source Code” is here to be intended as a precise scope delimitation, that is “any collection of computer instructions (possibly with comments) written using some human-readable computer language, usually as plain text” only. Or not...Mercurial works just fine on all sorts of formats, merging just tends to not work as well for opaque binary formats. I've used it successfully on images and word docs, albeit without ever trying to merge those formats (which I suspect would end in frustration.)Thanks. - P.M._______________________________________________Mercurial mailing listMercurial at selenic.comhttp://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/mercurial 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial/attachments/20140419/80c26fe9/attachment-0002.html>