Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git wiki

[Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>]

Dear diary, on Fri, May 05, 2006 at 02:56:59AM CEST, I got a letter
where linux@horizon.com said that...
> Actually, AFAICT from looking at the mailing list history, it's not dirty
> politics: the tie-breaker was the support and enthusiasm of the mercurial
> developers.  It passed with only minor comment on the git mailing list,
> but it was a Big Thing to the hg folks.
> 
> There are ups and downs.  OpenSolaris is definitely the big fish in
> the mercurial pond (that wasn't *meant* to sound like a recipe for
> heavy metal toxicity), and will get lots of attention, but git has more
> real-world experience.  The big fish in the git pond is Linus and Linux.
> 
> In any case, mercurial and git are really very similar, far closer
> to each other than any third system, so it's not like the decision is
> a descent into heresy.  Hopefully some useful cross-pollination
> can occur, and converting history from one to the other would be
> simple if anyone ever wanted to.

It's a philosophical question here, but I'd say that Git is much closer
to Monotone than to any other version control system - I think it can be
described as Monotone model with more elegant implementation (for some,
at least ;), no certificates and restriction of one head per branch.
And another important difference is that Monotone has persistent file
identifiers, but I think that's about the only thing that would make
Monotone more "file orientated".

I'm not much of a Mercurial pro but it appears to me that the
architectural differences there are larger, especially wrt. the revlogs
and wholly quite a more file-oriented model.

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
Right now I am having amnesia and deja-vu at the same time.  I think
I have forgotten this before.