On 4/8/06, Al Hopper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Stephen Hahn wrote: > > > > > Commentary is encouraged. We can start to look at specific > > SCM-dependent tools next week, unless we are more distant from > > consensus that I believe... > > > > Enjoy the weekend; my thanks to all. > > ... snip .... > > Therefore, we have decided to select Mercurial as the DSCM for > > OpenSolaris. In the coming time, we hope to work with the Mercurial > > community to address any issues we may find while integrating > > Mercurial into the OpenSolaris repository framework and converting > > existing source bases to use it. > ..... snip .... > > Indeed. Many well-earned Thanks to all who participated in the SCM tool > selection and to Stephen Hahn for taking the lead role. > > I think that Mercurial is the worthy winner of the evaluation.
May I ask whether this decision is wise? What is the background to prefer Mercurial over bit keeper, git or subversion? My primary concerns about using Mercurial as future basis for OpenSolaris development are: - Interoperability: Is there a compatibility layer or bridge to make the Mercurial repository available to CVS or Subversion clients? Many tools require either CVS or Subversion and Mercurial seems to provide no such access. - Portability: On how many platforms does Mercurial actually run? If I recall it correctly Mercurial required Python(!!) which is a portability NIGHTMARE. Mercurial was under discussion for other projects including KDE and was dismissed due to such problems. - Availability: Neither Suse Linux or any BSD variants (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD) provide Mercurial packages as part of their distributions. Choosing a niece product may not be wise. git, Subversion and bitkeeper are not only more popular - they are also much more widespread and better tested than Mercurial thanks to the far larger community. -- Holger _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
