[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-hackers] switching to mercurial?

From: Brandon J. Van Every
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] switching to mercurial?
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:53:20 -0800
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20061025)

felix winkelmann wrote:
[about Darcs]

I'm not seeing the problem with Darcs. I know it, it does what I want, it hasn't given me very many weird bugs. Push can be a little slow but it's not in the way of my workflow. I fire up a command prompt and go do something else. I don't like, "Let's change the tools!" just for the sake of fiddling with things that only bring marginal improvements. What is the big gain you're expecting from Mercurial, and are you seeing this big gain in the real world?

Any opinions or good/bad experience with mercurial?

You should read the results of the Mercurial user survey.

Some comments that concern me:

I found the different switches to hg update especially confusing at first. Extensions are sparsely documented and I still can't master the regexes/globs/whatever on .hgignore and similar.

The basics are easy, it's a bit more complicated for more advanced stuff and for new undocumented features.

Basic usage was very easy, but setting up a server with multiple users and repositories, and actually using the distributedness is more complicated.


I've converted from darcs just because of the speed, but now I'm hooked.

     Scales great, but I much prefer darcs in every other respect.

i would say that Mercurial needs a lot more work in terms of becoming stable and polishing up

Satisfied on Linux, but Windows version is a bit buggy. For example, "hg status ." doesn't seem to work in WinXP.

Brandon Van Every

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]