Hmm. I've used (in order, more or less), PLS (which I expect nobody to know), Clearcase, RCS, CVS, Arch, TLA, HG, BZR, and Git. I won't claim to have used svn in any real sense.
The first 4 of that list were centralized version control systems and so not applicable to this discussion. Of arch, tla, hg, bzr, and git, I'd say that I enjoyed bzr over hg for a rather long time. Now that I've used git, I think that git has the correct distributed model over hg and bzr. Once you realize that git doesn't require history to be immutable (but once you've shared history, you have a problem if you change it), you'll find that you can do a lot of things that simply are not possible with hg and bzr. (That's not entirely true; the patch queue for hg allowed you to do some things that you can do with git but with a tremendous amount of pain.) Mr. Bächle, you should try to use git for a couple of your internal projects. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/leo-editor contains *somewhere* a statement from Mr. Ream that he was able to do things with git that he was unable to do with bzr. -- Mark A. Flacy /[email protected]/ > Hi there, > > On 09.05.2016 16:57, Rob Boehne wrote: > > For me, scons is the ONLY project I work on that uses Mercurial, and > > having to translate each and every command is a real pain. > > I¹ve also NOT contributed back many changes I¹ve made to get Python to > > build properly on old UNIX systems, primarily because it was using Hg. > > and because you don't use an IDE (like Eclipse) that would support both > DVCS in a transparent fashion, and because you don't want to use a git-hg > bridge? > > > I doubt I¹m alone in this, and I¹m certain it¹s a lot easier to find a > > competent developer who knows Git but has never used Mercurial than the > > other way around. > > I'm one of the latter category, and obviously a dying species ;) according > to: > > http://two.pairlist.net/pipermail/scons-dev/2016-January/003374.html > > Don't let me hinder progress, and feel free to switch to git at any > time...but I then won't be much of a help when it comes to updating the > workflow descriptions in the Wiki or helping out newcomers with DVCS > problems. > > > This is an extra effort for most developers, and that > > extra effort will get more common, and more painful as the years go by. > > IMHO switching to Git is a clear win. > > <devils_advocate> > When we're talking about things like "effort" and "git as being less > painful", I'd like to renew my call for pointers to large open-source > projects that have switched to git as DVCS (from hg preferably): > > http://two.pairlist.net/pipermail/scons-dev/2016-January/003358.html > > Does anyone have a concrete example of a project that experienced a giant > productivity boost, based on a switch of the DVCS? > I understand that for you, and Tim, using git it would be less of a > hindrance to simply "check in" the changes and extensions for SCons that > you seem to have in the hopper. But I'm interested in increasing activity > in the "long run" for the project. ;) > > So, if you say that you're planning to get an active contributor, ready to > help out on the mailing lists and squashing a bug now and then...well, then > you win me over pretty fast. :) > </devils_advocate> > > Finally, the obligatory pointers to the archives for this and related > discussion(s): > > http://two.pairlist.net/pipermail/scons-dev/2016-January/003344.html > http://two.pairlist.net/pipermail/scons-dev/2016-January/003352.html > > Best regards, > > Dirk > > _______________________________________________ > Scons-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
_______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
