State of Hg-SVN vs Git-SVN

[Augie Fackler]

On Apr 15, 2015, at 7:28 PM, Charlie Gallo <Charlie at TheGallos.com> wrote:

> Hi Gang,
> I'm in an "Interesting" position.
> 
> I'm  about  to  start  a  new  role where I'm going to get to make the
> technology decisions for the future team.
> 
> Right  now, the existing source control system is SVN, and for various
> political  reasons,  I  don't think it would be a good idea to make an
> IMMEDIATE  jump to Hg or GIT - but as I will be working remote a large
> percentage of the time, having a DSCS is a big deal for me
> 
> My plan is to either use Hg-SVN or GIT-SVN
> 
> Here is my problem - deciding which
> 
> It  has  been  a long time since I've used Hg-SVN, and I've never used
> GIT-SVN.
> 
> I prefer Hg to Git, (fits the way I work better) BUT, and it is a huge
> but, with Microsoft's support of Git inside Visual Studio 2013 and
> later  (and  TFS - which I don't love) there are some strong points to
> be made for Git (basically, making it easier/Microsoft's 'support')
> 
> Anyone  on  the  group  have experience with both?  Pros/cons.  One of
> those times where I have to look at a bigger picture than just which I
> like  better (Hg) and have to look at "which is better for the company
> in the long run”

So, I’m biased because I wrote hgsubversion, but while I was initially working on it six years ago it was a point of personal pride that I was handling complicated branching and tagging setups better than git-svn. As far as I’m aware, this is still the case[0].

Unless git-svn has gotten a ton smarter since I last looked, hgsubversion is also significantly lower-overhead on the server as well. I designed it to use almost exclusively RPCs that the Subversion server can satisfy very cheaply.


0: I recently helped an OSS project move from code.google.com’s svn to github, and the most faithful conversion ended up being subversion->hg->git, because that didn’t result in corrupt tags and missing branches. I was using a version of git from the last two months when this happened.

> -- 
> Charlie
> www.baysidephoto.com
> www.thegallos.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mercurial mailing list
> Mercurial at selenic.com
> http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/mercurial

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial/attachments/20150416/51739a51/attachment.asc>