I prefer Mercurial - much lighter and much less risk of ruining your repo.
But, M$ has been hacking git:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/03/microsoft_foists_fake_file_system_for_fat_git_repos/
so maybe Windows 11 will be a total rewrite with zero reused code! :)
Sent from my iPad
> On
On Thu 2017-08-10 00:49:31 -0400, Jason Harris wrote:
> I prefer Mercurial - much lighter
I'm not sure what "lighter" means, but it's surely not about speed -- i
can clone a git repo the size of sks in a fraction of the time it takes
me to hg clone the sks repo.
> and much less risk of ruining yo
On Tue 2017-08-08 15:27:46 +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> (i) Should we use git for revision control instead of mercurial?
this was the question i wanted to trigger -- i'm happy we're having the
discussion.
> (ii)(A) Should we continue to use bitbucket (it also supports git so
> not depe
