Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:13:06 -0700 From: perryh@pluto.rain.com To: jhell@DataIX.net Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: autoconf update Message-ID: <4c93f602.pzTXVEQ%2B3q2cRA23%perryh@pluto.rain.com> In-Reply-To: <4C93A107.4070809@DataIX.net> References: <4C91446F.3090202@bsdforen.de> <20100916171744.GA48415@hades.panopticon> <4C927ED0.5050307@bsdforen.de> <86zkvhfhaa.fsf@gmail.com> <4C92C14D.3010005@FreeBSD.org> <4C92F195.5000605@FreeBSD.org> <4C93A107.4070809@DataIX.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
jhell <jhell@DataIX.net> wrote: > ... Mercurial being the distributed version control that it is > allows you to clone, make the changes you need to the clone test it > thoroughly and then either push or pull them to the main tree ... At the risk of starting the VCS variant of the vi vs emacs wars :) why Mercurial (rather than, say, GIT or SVK)? And no, I have nothing against Mercurial. I don't know _any_ distributed VCS well enough to have an opinion of which would be best suited.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4c93f602.pzTXVEQ%2B3q2cRA23%perryh>