After playing with hg and git for few days, I tend to agree with the
emacs guys. It looks to me that any of them will do the job (as did
svn). I don't really care which one will be selected by the community
as long as we:
1. Don't spend months in deciding which one to choose.
2. Don't loose the nice integration o svn with our TRAC. Independent
on how good/fast the dVCS is, the way svn integrate with trac is a
real time saver. Tracking bugs, linking to revisions and to the wiki
are really important features to me, and I think that whatever our
decision will be we should not lose this.
On Mar 24, 2008, at 2:12 PM, Roland Dreier wrote:
> LWN.net has an interesting article about how Emacs chose a new version
> control system: <http://lwn.net/Articles/272011/>
> They were back in the CVS stone ages, but their main contenders were
> the same big three of distributed VCSs: git, hg and bzr. The article
> pulls out a couple of very good quotes from their discussion. The one
> that caught my eye was from Richard Stallman:
> We already know the most important thing about what we will find
> a careful study of git, mercurial and Bzr. We will find that each
> its advantages and disadvantages -- but none of them conclusive.
> will be preferred by some people, but any one of them would work
> well enough.
> - R.
> devel mailing list
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s