Re: distributed version control

[Rafael Laboissiere]

* Thomas Weber <address@hidden> [2008-01-16 23:06]:

> Am Mittwoch, den 16.01.2008, 16:23 -0500 schrieb John W. Eaton:
> > Possibilities to consider are mercurial, git, bzr (and possibly
> > others).  Does anyone on the list have experience with these tools?
> 
> I currently use Mercurial, but have also use Git occasionally. One thing
> about Git: it's fast, even on large files (> 100 MB). However, I find
> its interface with the staging area ("index") unintuitive. Other people
> might disagree. Git is written in pure C, this might be a problem on
> Windows. But if things grow large, Git is definitely the tool. 

I think this alone would make the point for using git instead of the others,
since Octave is a quite big project.

I am starting to use git now and know nothing about hg or bzr, at least not
enough to make comparisons among these systems.  Anyway, git is gaining a
lot of momentum now.

> > We discussed Subversion in the past, but I'm not sure it is
> > sufficiently better than CVS to bother switching (if I'm wrong about
> > this, then please tell me whether Subversion can meet all the
> > requirements listed above).

Just for the fun, Linus Torvalds said in a talk about git at Google [1]:

    "The slogan for Subversion for a while was: `CVS done right', or
    something like that.  If you start with that kind of slogan there is
    nowhere you can go.  There is no way to get CVS right."

[1] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2199332044603874737

-- 
Rafael