Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git wiki

["Paolo Ciarrocchi" <paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com>]

On 5/3/06, Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se> wrote:
> >>On Wed, 3 May 2006, Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 5/3/06, Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Dear diary, on Wed, May 03, 2006 at 10:39:07AM CEST, I got a letter
> >>>>where Paolo Ciarrocchi <paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com> said that...
> >>>>
> >>>>>On 5/3/06, Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>BTW, do you know why GIT has not been selected as SCM for OpenSolaris?
> >>>>>(they choose Mercurial).
> >>>>
> >>>>I think it's explained somewhere in their forums (or mailing lists or
> >>>>whatever they actually _are_).
> >>>
> >>>I only found the announcement, not the rationales.
> >>
> >>http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/tools-discuss/2006-April/000366.html
> >>
> >>Looks like they didn't buy the argument about the uselessness of
> >>recording file renames.
> >
> >
> > The final evaluations are available from here (at the very bottom
> > of the page):
> >
> >   http://opensolaris.org/os/community/tools/scm/
> >
> > It looks like Mercurial doesn't support renames either, but a lot
> > of users are asking for it to be supported.  So I don't think that's
> > the reason.  It looks more like they didn't enjoy porting GIT 1.2.2
> > (as 1.2.4 was found to not work in all cases) to Solaris and the
> > tester ran into some problems with the conflict resolution support.
> >
> > My own reading of the two final evaluations for GIT and Mercurial
> > leaves me feeling like GIT is a more mature tool which is faster
> > and more stable then Mercurial.  GIT seemed to be more reliable
> > during testing then Mercurial was, despite the cloning issue.
> > Which makes me surprised that OpenSolaris selected Mercurial instead.
> >
>

Would be fantastic to see a fair comparison of the two tools but I
can't find anything useful on the web.

--
Paolo
http://paolociarrocchi.googlepages.com