I don't know if it's helpful information, but Mercurial and Git are functionally very similar. There isn't much to choose between them. I never understood why Torvalds and crew bothered coding Git in the first place. I use Mercurial.
There's a bunch of hosting sites for both tools, but you don't really need them. Distributed revision control is logically peer to peer. It doesn't depend on central sites. As long as you have upload access to an ordinary Web server, you can share your code with anyone (even on the hosting sites) just by posting your repo. Here are my own repos, for example: http://zelea.com/var/db/repo/ -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ Duane Johnson wrote: > Git and GitHub has the largest mindshare among open source developers that I > am aware of (I come from the open source dev community, not academia). If > you want to be discovered or collaborate, I recommend that route. Brian Olson <[email protected]> wrote: > I counter-recommend git. I don't like it. If you like the new > 'distributed version control' system style, I recommend > Mercurial. code.google.com also supports mercurial. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
