The company I work for switched from cvs to Mercurial about 7 months ago. We investigated git and bazaar and went with mercurial mostly because of the support for multiple OS's and speed (Bazaar was really slow for doing anything with our codebase). Merging with mercurial has been fairly painless. Most merges are taken care of without any user interaction, unless you've edited a line of code that someone else edited then you'll have to manually merge every diff in the file.
For some personal projects I've started using it at home. The distributed nature of it makes it nice. I can make a clone off of my server at home to my laptop, then commit and browse the source history without having to connect to my server again. When I'm ready to sync up, it's just a fetch and a push and my changes are back on the server. -Eric On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Roberto Mello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Alvaro Carrasco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > It is true that it lacks merge tracking, but you can use the svnmerge.py > > tool to track merges for you. It works great. > > Yes, and I use svnmerge.py. It's pretty much the only sane way I know > of to use branches with subversion. > > But it is subpar, and there are problems, and caveats, and you have to > be careful, and someone has to be left with the chore of merging > things. > > In other words it's a pain, just a lesser pain than if svnmerge.py > didn't exist. Such pain does not exist with distributed VCSs. > > Roberto > > > > _______________________________________________ > > UPHPU mailing list > [email protected] > http://uphpu.org/mailman/listinfo/uphpu > IRC: #uphpu on irc.freenode.net > _______________________________________________ UPHPU mailing list [email protected] http://uphpu.org/mailman/listinfo/uphpu IRC: #uphpu on irc.freenode.net
