Jonathan Larmour <[email protected]> writes: > Alex Schuilenburg wrote: >> >>>A switch of the public CVS repository to Mercurial would be a major >>>improvement. >>> >> >> Agreed. My initial findings are also that mercurial is the preferred >> solution. It is not as powerful as git, or even as fast, > > By "more powerful", do you mean git allows you to do anything of > significance that hg/bzr doesn't? I didn't think there was from my own > checking, but I'm prepared to be corrected.
git rebase is my favorite and is very handy to maintain changes w.r.t official repository to be then contributed back. BTW, rebasing is what CVS actually does with your local changes when you do 'cvs update'. Except git rebase is much more safe and convenient. I can't tell if hg or bzr already have something similar though as they seem to borrow features from each other rather quickly. My personal order of preference is: git, hg, bzr. But once again, the differences between those 3 are minor compared to advantages any of them has compared to CVS ;-) -- Sergei. -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss
