Re: Switching to Subversion

[Miles Bader]

Sascha Wilde <address@hidden> writes:
> Another interesting point is performance, experience shows that
> mercurial is not slower than git, in fact, there are certain
> situations where mercurial is way faster.  And when it comes to usage
> of resources (RAM, disk space) mercurial is (sometimes _much_) more
> efficient, too. -- Sorry for sounding a bit like a commercial, but I
> was quite skeptical my self until Thomas (I CCed him) convinced me to
> actually try it, and now I'm really a fan...  ;-)

No, I know that mercurial definitely has some very strong points, though
I've seen a lot of arguing over their relative merits.  I'm slightly
nervous about the name-based repository layout though, as it's such a
horrible lose in the case of CVS -- git's "content based" storage is
very appealing in that sense.

I'm also slightly confused by the relationship between git and mercurial
-- can mercurial clone/pull/push from/to a git tree and vice-versa?

Thanks,

-Miles

-- 
Run away!  Run away!