[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Switching to Subversion

From: Thomas Arendsen Hein
Subject: Re: Switching to Subversion
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:43:50 +0100
User-agent: mutt-ng/devel-r804 (Linux)

* Miles Bader <address@hidden> [20061113 09:57]:
> Sascha Wilde <address@hidden> writes:
> > 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...  ;-)

I'm the Thomas which Sascha mentioned and I'm now subscribed to the
list, at for the course of this discussion.

> 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

That's actually one of the strong points of Mercurial. Because of
the name based layout the directory traversal order is more
efficient for filesystems with linear directory storage (like ext[2-4])

> 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?

There is a fast and incremental converter from git to Mercurial
included with Mercurial for over a year now and the next release of
Mercurial (expected in a few days) can export patches not only in
the standard patch format, but in git's extended patch format which
preserves copies/renames/executable-bit/binaries, too.


Email: address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]