On Sat, 24 Jan 2009, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
> I used git and mercurial at work for small projects to test things a > little bit and both are a real pain compared with svn and I saw no > increased productivity for small projects and I cannot imagine how this > should be different for fpc or lazarus. > - line ending conversion is at the same poor level as cvs: you often end > with full diffs by accident when working on different systems. Ok, I > admit editing files on a unix system through a samba share with a > windows editor is uncommon but I often do it and it breaks horrible with > git and hg. > - no blocking of revisions to merge: svnmerge has a nice feature which > allows to block revisions to be merged to a branch. This is neither > possible with git nor with hg as far as I can see and at least fpc uses > it heavily. > - I often forgot a hg up after an hg push/hg pull and ended with files > full of conflicts due to this. Thanks for these remarks. The real reason I keep my eye on git is that Subversion is a real pain if you have a lot of branches. Tracking all revisions of a file accross branches (something we do a lot at work) is incredibly slow. The subversion graph takes meanwhile a full 5 minutes to build up. But my remark was not meant to indicate that we should switch to git as a main repository. I merely wanted to say that providing mirrors of SVN in other systems is something we can consider. Michael. _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
