On Wed, December 19, 2007 2:29 am, SJS wrote: > 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 can't think of a single reason it should. Outside programs are fine. Why should Mercurial hack them yet again and take on supporting the hack? *NIX ... tools that do one thing and do it well, working together. -- Lan Barnes SCM Analyst Linux Guy Tcl/Tk Enthusiast Biodiesel Brewer -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
