Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 18:03:17 -0700 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Revision control advice Message-ID: <20111223010317.GA11856@hemlock.hydra> In-Reply-To: <9054C93B-B423-4C34-B95D-3C4119FC2C45@adelaide.edu.au> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1112212011490.44046@tripel.monochrome.org> <4EF29AD7.5040807@herveybayaustralia.com.au> <CAFYJ9ehcvoP%2BS%2BtacD2g8CZ-UmBHrNx9FSBXMyUUM7M26dbiXw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKYr3zwnRAj-quhJ8iL4DGuRatGLPHQPLD958WQyAFeS=GW4fg@mail.gmail.com> <CAM_d0bpnGLNSQ3LkBSy%2BLNv8o80J8LO3RP4fvc=7f1C52bvKsA@mail.gmail.com> <4EF2FA12.5010606@infracaninophile.co.uk> <9054C93B-B423-4C34-B95D-3C4119FC2C45@adelaide.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 09:23:22AM +1030, William Brown wrote: > On 22/12/2011, at 20:06, Matthew Seaman wrote: > > > > svn vs git vs mercurial > > > > svn has the model of a central repository that everything has to > > communicate with. This can be attractive in a commercial environment as > > it implies a degree of central control over all of the project source code. > > > > git is much more a peer-to-peer system. This fits with a disparate > > group of projects all proceeding pretty much independently. There's > > also a potential advantage if all your developers are not at the same > > location and will not necessarily have access to central office systems. > > > > mercurial unfortunately I'm not that familiar with, but it uses a > > distributed model like git. > > I would advise staying away from mercurial (aka hg). It has a lot of > issues with corruption of repositories. Git does the same and is a lot > more mature and stable. Uh . . . what? Please provide a source for that claim. > > > > Other criteria, like windows support, are not anything I have much > > experience of, but by all accounts svn and git are pretty well served. > > Again, git wins here. It has good support on windows, as well as with > graphical tools on windows. How does TortoiseGIT improve on TortoiseHG? I'm curious. > > You can use git like SVN if you push to the master after every commit > though. I also have found git's support for merging to be a lot better. > Additionally it stores branches and tags as metadata on commits rather > than svn's "dumb" tag / branch system where you just copy the full repo > to the side. For the vast majority of purposes, distributed VCSes like Fossil, Git, and Mercurial are quite superior to CVCSes such as Subversion. There are cases, however, where a truly centralized system is more appropriate. These are typically cases where division of labor is very starkly defined and a strong central control over everything needs to be maintained even when the people working out at the nodes of the system might be tempted to follow a different, ad-hoc process of their own. For those cases, something like Git (or Fossil or Mercurial) simply will not do.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111223010317.GA11856>