Re: [Chicken-hackers] switching to mercurial?

[Brandon J. Van Every]

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.
http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/UserSurvey#head-e3c14f1be577d94d2b24925abc60162486061121

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.

darcs

     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.


Cheers,
Brandon Van Every