On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 08:51:39 +0200 Dominic Fandrey <kamik...@bsdforen.de> wrote:
> On 18/09/2010 01:13, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: > > jhell <jh...@dataix.net> wrote: > > > >> ... Mercurial being the distributed version control that it is > >> allows you to clone, make the changes you need to the clone test it > >> thoroughly and then either push or pull them to the main tree ... > > > > At the risk of starting the VCS variant of the vi vs emacs wars :) > > why Mercurial (rather than, say, GIT or SVK)? > > > > And no, I have nothing against Mercurial. I don't know _any_ > > distributed VCS well enough to have an opinion of which would > > be best suited. > > There is great documentation and re-education material > (for SVN users) out there for Mercurial. I'm sure. > But this is not going to happen any way. The ports are still stuck > with _CVS_. I'm still to see a concise, clear, precise, listing of advantages that switching from CVS would bring us, that would overcome the effort needed to do it (committers, users, infrastructure, tools). -- IOnut - Un^d^dregistered ;) FreeBSD "user" "Intellectual Property" is nowhere near as valuable as "Intellect" FreeBSD committer -> ite...@freebsd.org, PGP Key ID 057E9F8B493A297B
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
