I've got to say that we've been using bzr at work for about two years and it's working really well. When we chose it, it offered features that neither git nor Mercurial offered. In git's case, the Windows support story was so poor that it wasn't acceptable (that might well have changed, it certainly couldn't have become worse), and in Mercurial's case there was an aspect of directory version tracking that seemed important that pushed us to prefer bzr over Mercurial.
I will admit that bzr's tool support story is pretty poor, though it does seem to be getting better. Guy On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Karsten Silz <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 2, 3:12 pm, Balz <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> I'm still not sure whether I should use Mercurial or Git, both have >> pros and cons. > > You could look at how Git and Mercurial are supported by tools - I > think Git has an advantage here: > > - There's an official Git SCM provider at Eclipse, and Eclipse offers > Git hosting to its projects, too. The CVS integration in Eclipse was > very good - in part, I believe, because Eclipse used CVS itself. > - Github is a pretty popular place to host and collaborate code. > - If you ever venture into Uncle Steve's wonderful but walled world, > then you'll find that Xcode 4 (in beta since last June) will support > Git, too. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
