On 3 June 2013, Ben Fritz <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Monday, June 3, 2013 7:21:04 AM UTC-5, Josh wrote:
> > On Jun 3, 2013, at 6:25 AM, LCD 47 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > (1) Mercurial and Git are virtually identical to one another in
> > > terms of features. There are, of course, differences, but they
> > > are largely irrelevant to this discussion.
> >
> > I wouldn't say they're completely irrelevant to this discussion. If
> > we're discussing a shift in how development works, discussing a new
> > dcvs might be a good idea too. +1 to git
> >
>
> Mercurial has an extension (hg-git) that allows it to push-pull git
> repositories as well as native Hg repositories. Git probably has
> something similar. Anybody who wants to use Git can.
Yup, there are bridges both ways. They do have a few quirks, but
they generally work well.
> But I think moving the official repository to a new DVCS because some
> developers like it better, this soon after adopting Mercurial, would
> be silly at best.
Absolutely. As I said, the main problem is not that Mercurial
doesn't have enough feature, but rather that right now Mercurial's
features are not used.
/lcd
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"vim_dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
