On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 9:24 AM Gleb Popov <arrowd_at_freebsd.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 7:50 PM Warner Losh <imp_at_bsdimp.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 7:27 AM Guido Falsi <mad_at_madpilot.net> wrote: >> >> > On 18/12/20 14:02, Miroslav Lachman wrote: >> > > On 25/11/2020 06:54, Thomas Mueller wrote: >> > > >> > >> NetBSD users face a similar problem with their upcoming switch from >> > >> cvs to hg (Mercurial). >> > > >> > > Do anybody have a link to some documents stating why FreeBSD chose Git >> > > and why NetBSD chose Mercurial? I am using both tools at $WORK, I am >> > > just curious what leads to these decisions. >> > > >> > >> > This is a draft document discussing exactly this (I'm not the author, >> > imp was) >> > >> > https://github.com/bsdimp/freebsd-git-docs/blob/main/git-why.md >> >> >> My blog >> >> http://bsdimp.blogspot.com/2020/09/freebsd-subversion-to-git-migration.html >> >> And this video I did >> https://youtu.be/uj1Ricrq0bs that starts with an old in joke... >> >> Warner >> > > I can't find anything about Mercurial in all three links. > Yes. I was answering the first question asked about FreeBSD and git... The clincher for me was that git is better supported by third party tools and has gotten quite good at 'recovery from oops' which mercurial is still lacking in both areas. I too have used both, and I had to re clone my hg tree several times, but so far have never screwed up a git repo so bad I had to reclone... The history rewriting of git is more integrated and more polished than the equivalent in hg, as are the rebase workflows which really help have a cleaner history... WarnerReceived on Fri Dec 18 2020 - 15:31:51 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:26 UTC