[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: What a modern collaboration toolkit looks like

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: What a modern collaboration toolkit looks like
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:49:16 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Tassilo Horn <address@hidden> writes:

> dhruva <address@hidden> writes:
>>  Anyone pitching in for mercurial (hg)?
> Before everybody posts his favourite SCM I'd say we wait until Eric
> finished his comparison paper.  Then we'll have all pros and cons side
> by side and choose whichever fits our needs best.
> Talking about portability, git does run on anything POSIX and there's
> a fork for Windows (without cygwin), which is merged into the main
> line right now.  (Maybe its already finished.)

Not yet, as far as I know.  I am partial to git because it is fast,
flexible and can keep up with the history of code fragments moving
between files (not just renaming).

However, its current state for Windows developers is painful.  While I
don't use Windows myself, I do consider this sort of a showstopper.  But
git is actively headed towards supporting Windows quite well, and I
would not want to rush into a different SCM just because of the Windows
support when it appears that the severity of Windows drawbacks will go
away mostly in a not so distant future.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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