Yah, okay, it's a reply to an old message... begin quoting Andrew Lentvorski as of Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 02:01:43PM -0800: > SJS wrote: > >begin quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] as of Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 12:38:14PM > >>Much is said about how git does merging better than cvs or svn. > > > >Really? > > Yes. > > The answer is simply that git/mercurial/bzr/darcs store much more > metadata than CVS/SVN. > > Therefore, mercurial/darcs/bzr/darcs are, by definition, no worse. And, > yet, they have the possibility of being better.
Apparently, mercurial doesn't do merges. (I was poking around on the mercurial webpages today and discovered this.) It foists that task off on to the external program of your choice. So. I'm not sure I buy your argument that it's, by definition, no worse. It can ALWAYS get worse. -- However, mercurial is working out pretty well in conjunction with CVS. Nice. Stewart Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
