(sorry for the broken threading -- I pulled this from the web archive) I'd like to recommend mercurial (disclaimer: I'm one of the developers). It's in the same ballpark as git for speed (sometimes slower, sometimes faster), but the UI is much friendlier. In fact I've been maintaining a mercurial mirror of the click repository for some time:
http://hg.kublai.com/click/release/one/ http://hg.kublai.com/click/packages/ > Git can be irritating, in that the central repository > must pull copies from the downstream versions, at > least to the best of my knowledge. The last time I > tried git, the push command didn't do a whole lot. It > also doesn't integrate cleanly into bugtrackers like > trac or project management systems such as gforge or > collaboa. Mercurial integrates quite well with trac. I've set this up for mutt (the mail program, which I maintain) so that commit messages can automatically close referenced bugs etc (dev.mutt.org/trac/). > Having said that, git is the only distributed source > control system in general use. There are plenty of > such systems, but you don't see them being used with > nearly the same frequency as git. Some, such as arch, > are also beginning to look like abandonware, which is > exactly what you don't want. Mercurial is used by a fair number of high profile projects, including xen, mozilla, and opensolaris (and mutt :)). There's a nice subset listed here: http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/ProjectsUsingMercurial --- Eddie Kohler <kohler at cs.ucla.edu> wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to move away from Click's current > anonymous CVS based > development model to a distributed source control > system. This would > let people maintain public branches of their own. I > am leaning towards > "git", the tool originally developed for Linux. > > http://git.or.cz/ > > Any complaints or comments? Speak now! > > Thanks, > Eddie _______________________________________________ click mailing list [email protected] https://amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/click
