From: Kevin Smith <yarcs@qualitycode.com>
To: Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>, mercurial@selenic.com
Subject: Re: Mercurial vs Updated git HOWTO for kernel hackers
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:57:00 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <42BC112C.1040009@qualitycode.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050624130604.GK17715@g5.random>
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 08:41:01AM +0200, Petr Baudis wrote:
>
>>Cool. Except where the concepts are just different, Cogito mostly
>>appears at least equally simple to use as Mercurial. Yes, some
>>features are missing yet. I hope to fix that soon. :-)
>
>
> The user interface and network protocol isn't the big deal, the
> big deal is the more efficient on-disk storage format IMHO.
For me, efficient storage is not very important, because I mostly deal
with small projects. Likewise, speed isn't a factor for me, since both
tools are plenty fast on small repos.
For me, the big advantage of mercurial is that it is written in python,
instead of shell scripts. I know for some people that's a DISadvantage,
but I see the following benefits as a result:
- Can run on (native) MS Windows
(necessary for me because I often work on cross-platform projects)
- Python code can be more clear and expressive (IMHO)
In the long run, I think the python code base will be easier to maintain
and enhance. A rewrite of cogito in python or ruby would be cool.
One advantage that cogito has is that git viewing/browsing tools can
operate directly on cogito repos. But a psychological drawback is the
ongoing confusion between git and cogito. Questions: Would a git-based
tool that writes to the repo (such as StGIT) mess up a cogito repo? Can
you switch a repo between git and cogito or back, at any time?
Mercurial's tags use a radical approach, whereas cogito's are more
conventional. I haven't yet used mercurial's versioned-tags enough yet
to judge whether they are better, worse, or just different.
I am impressed with the vibrancy of the development communities of both
projects. Both are able to serve repos on a plain http server. Both are
easy to use and have decent basic feature sets. Both projects are
developing test suites.
Mostly, I'm thrilled with this new wave of lightweight distributed SCM
systems. Most of the established tools tended to be too heavy on
features and complexity, and have taken a long time to develop. I love
that a single developer or small team can now create a simple but usable
distributed SCM in a couple months.
Kevin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-06-24 13:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 98+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-06-22 22:24 Updated git HOWTO for kernel hackers Jeff Garzik
2005-06-22 22:40 ` Dave Jones
2005-06-22 22:47 ` Jeff Garzik
2005-06-22 22:52 ` Dave Jones
2005-06-23 0:14 ` Jeff Garzik
2005-06-25 3:33 ` Jeff Garzik
2005-06-25 17:29 ` Dave Jones
2005-06-22 23:09 ` Greg KH
2005-06-22 23:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-06-23 0:05 ` Jeff Garzik
2005-06-23 0:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-06-23 1:47 ` Jeff Garzik
2005-06-23 1:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-06-23 2:16 ` Jeff Garzik
2005-06-23 2:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-06-23 3:06 ` Jeff Garzik
2005-06-23 3:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-06-23 5:16 ` Jeff Garzik
2005-06-23 5:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-06-23 6:20 ` Greg KH
2005-06-23 6:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-06-23 7:11 ` Greg KH
2005-06-23 7:03 ` Jeff Garzik
2005-06-23 7:38 ` Petr Baudis
2005-06-23 8:18 ` Martin Langhoff
2005-06-23 8:30 ` Vojtech Pavlik
2005-06-23 14:31 ` Horst von Brand
2005-06-22 23:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-06-23 0:15 ` Jeff Garzik
2005-06-23 1:53 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-06-23 7:06 ` Jeff Garzik
2005-06-23 15:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-06-23 0:33 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-06-23 2:04 ` Jeff Garzik
2005-06-23 2:28 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-06-23 3:52 ` Adam Kropelin
2005-06-23 4:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-06-23 5:35 ` Jeff Garzik
2005-06-23 6:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-06-23 6:07 ` Miles Bader
2005-06-23 7:15 ` Jeff Garzik
2005-06-23 16:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-06-23 8:01 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2005-06-23 4:23 ` Daniel Barkalow
2005-06-23 12:25 ` Dave Airlie
2005-06-23 23:56 ` Mercurial vs " Matt Mackall
2005-06-24 6:41 ` Petr Baudis
2005-06-24 12:38 ` Christopher Li
2005-06-28 15:00 ` Petr Baudis
2005-06-28 15:10 ` Andrew Thompson
2005-06-28 15:35 ` Petr Baudis
2005-06-28 21:54 ` Horst von Brand
2005-06-28 18:47 ` Christopher Li
2005-06-29 0:12 ` Kyle Moffett
2005-06-28 18:01 ` Matt Mackall
2005-06-28 20:27 ` Kyle Moffett
2005-06-28 20:45 ` Sean
2005-06-28 22:14 ` Matt Mackall
2005-06-28 22:23 ` Sean
2005-06-28 22:47 ` Kyle Moffett
2005-06-28 22:49 ` Matt Mackall
2005-06-28 22:59 ` Sean
2005-06-28 23:25 ` Kyle Moffett
2005-06-28 23:37 ` Sean
2005-06-29 0:08 ` Kyle Moffett
2005-06-29 0:25 ` Sean
2005-06-29 3:53 ` Kyle Moffett
2005-06-29 10:27 ` Vojtech Pavlik
2005-06-28 23:29 ` Matt Mackall
2005-06-29 6:32 ` Thomas Arendsen Hein
2005-06-24 13:06 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2005-06-24 13:39 ` Theodore Ts'o
2005-06-24 13:46 ` Paolo Ciarrocchi
2005-06-24 12:19 ` Christopher Li
2005-06-24 13:57 ` Kevin Smith [this message]
2005-06-24 18:03 ` Matt Mackall
2005-06-28 15:07 ` Petr Baudis
2005-06-28 15:15 ` Sven Verdoolaege
2005-06-28 15:34 ` Petr Baudis
2005-06-28 16:50 ` Cygwin and Native MS Windows (was: Mercurial vs Updated git HOWTO for kernel hackers) Kevin Smith
2005-06-28 16:51 ` Cogito vs. Git " Kevin Smith
2005-06-28 20:54 ` Petr Baudis
2005-06-24 13:16 ` Mercurial vs Updated git HOWTO for kernel hackers Matthias Urlichs
2005-06-24 19:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-06-24 19:25 ` John W. Linville
2005-06-24 22:38 ` Jeff Garzik
2005-06-24 21:11 ` Daniel Barkalow
2005-06-24 22:08 ` Should "git-read-tree -m -u" delete files? Junio C Hamano
2005-06-24 22:45 ` Mercurial vs Updated git HOWTO for kernel hackers Joel Becker
2005-06-24 23:08 ` Kyle Moffett
2005-06-27 18:31 ` Pavel Machek
2005-06-27 19:05 ` Kyle Moffett
2005-06-27 19:40 ` Matt Mackall
2005-06-27 19:51 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2005-06-27 20:51 ` Matt Mackall
2005-06-27 21:53 ` Ed Tomlinson
2005-07-08 15:18 ` Amin Azez
2005-07-11 8:56 ` Amin Azez
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=42BC112C.1040009@qualitycode.com \
--to=yarcs@qualitycode.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mercurial@selenic.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).