[slime-devel] Re: Mercurial

[Jeronimo Pellegrini]

On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 02:48:46PM +0100, Helmut Eller wrote:
> * Rafaâ Strzaliäski [2008-03-04 13:46+0100] writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Helmut Eller <heller at common-lisp.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>  What do people think of switching from CVS to Mercurial[*] ?
> >
> > Why not GIT? SBCL switched from CVS to git with a success. Nikodem S.
> > wrote very good
> > tutorial.
> 
> The big three VCSes currently seem to be Git, Mercurial and Bazaar.

I certainly don't vote here, but I thought I'd bring one more data
point.

I have used Monotone in the past, and then switched some of my
repositories to Git, some to Mercurial. I found Git to be somewhat
complex as others said. Mercurial was fast and nice *until* I
had to do non-trivial things like cloning a large repository or
sending several isolated deltas from the past via email.

I'm going back to Monotone. It may be somewhat slower, but it is *very*
robust[0], is being actively developed, has very good documentation[1]
and no complex dependencies. There is also support for visualizing the
commit graph, among other interesting features.

I have never used bzr, so I can't compare it to Monotone.

J.

[0] Besides heavy black-box tests, invariants are checked all over the
   code, and there are tools for checking the integrity of a repository.
[1] Disclaimer: I wrote a section of the manual (the tutorial on
   packets).