On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 20:52:58 +0100, Emanuele Aina <em@...1809...> wrote:
Incidentally, as far as DSCMs go, I'd personally recommend either git or mercurial. git is more robust (I would prefer to keep our core history in git format) and has better analysis tools (which I've come to rely on heavily), but mercurial is much less user-hostile.
Just curious, why do you think that git is more robust than mercurial?
Git stores everything as read-only files, named with the cryptographic hash of their contents. Files are never modified once created, and all operations are atomic at the filesystem level, mostly obviating the need for locking.
Mercurial stores each file's history separately, with multiple revisions combined in the same file, sort of like CVS. These files are append-only, but do require locking for updates.
In reality, I think Mercurial is only "non-robust" by comparison to git, since Mercurial is pretty careful about detecting when something has gone wrong. I just prefer systems where it isn't possible for something to go wrong in the first place (down to the guarantees given by the operating system, at least).
-mental