On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:07 AM, David Mertens <[email protected]> wrote: > For my part, I vote to let Daniel keep the Git/Mercurial side-by-side. I > don't think it's confusing and it make Daniel and other mercurial fans > happy. The only issues will arise if we ever start making fancy hooks for > our git repo, at which point I will leave it up the mercurial fans to figure > out how to make sure things work.
:-D > Git's default behavior let's you create your own local branches without > pushing them to the server unless you explicitly tell it to do so. It seems > to me that this is one of many examples in which mercurial leans towards > behavior that makes sense for smaller projects whereas git leans towards > behavior that makes sense for larger projects. I doubt it. Mercurial and Git were both designed with the exact same project in mind (the Linux kernel), and both are used by both large and small projects. So I think it's just a matter how each team prefers to work. Hg defaults to making things public and Git defaults to making things private. I don't see an obvious big/small dichotomy here, and I think experience shows that there isn't one. I think it's just personal preference. Personally I don't care what the default is, as long as the SCM makes it easy for me to choose how I want to work. Daniel. -- No trees were killed in the generation of this message. A large number of electrons were, however, severely inconvenienced. _______________________________________________ Perldl mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
