On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 08:53:06 +0100, Don wrote: > Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >> What are the advantages of Mercurial over git? (git does allow multiple >> branches.) >> >> Andrei > > Essentially political and practical rather than technical. > > Mercurial doesn't have the blatant hostility to Windows that is evident > in git. It also doesn't have the blatant hostility to svn (in fact, it > tries hard to ease the transition).
I don't think Git's SVN hostility is a problem in practice. AFAIK there are tools (git-svn comes to mind) that can transfer the contents of an SVN repository, with full commit history and all, to a Git repo. Also, it will only have to be done once, so that shouldn't weigh too heavily on the decision. > Technically, I don't think there's much difference between git and > Mercurical, compared to how different they are from svn. Then my vote goes to Git, simply because that's what I'm familiar with. -Lars
