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 your repo.

less risk of ruining *your* repo perhaps -- I've managed to ruin plenty
of hg repos myself, whereas my git repos are almost always in a useful
state, and when they're not i can recover them :)  Clearly i'm better at
ruining repos than you are :)

My point, of course, is: you probably have a better understanding of
what's going on in the hg internals and how to use its interface than i
do.  I feel more comfortable with git.  If the larger community prefers
hg, i'll continue being the person on the outside, but if most other
people are having the same frustrations i've had, and would feel more
comfortable with git, i'd be interested in considering a switch.  (i
recognize that would leave you "on the outside", which is no fun.)  I'm
not asking this question to push you or other hg-preferring developers
out of sks, Jason, and would welcome suggestions for how to have a
bigger tent.  sks suffers from a lack of active development, and we need
more eyes on it if the OpenPGP community is going to continue to rely on
keyservers.

        --dkg

_______________________________________________
Sks-devel mailing list
Sks-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/sks-devel

Reply via email to