Moving to D

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Friday 07 January 2011 03:33:48 Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 08:53:06 +0100, Don wrote:
> > Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >> What are the advantages of Mercurial over git? (git does allow multiple
> >> branches.)
> >> 
> >> Andrei
> > 
> > Essentially political and practical rather than technical.
> > 
> > Mercurial doesn't have the blatant hostility to Windows that is evident
> > in git. It also doesn't have the blatant hostility to svn (in fact, it
> > tries hard to ease the transition).
> 
> I don't think Git's SVN hostility is a problem in practice.  AFAIK there
> are tools (git-svn comes to mind) that can transfer the contents of an
> SVN repository, with full commit history and all, to a Git repo.  Also,
> it will only have to be done once, so that shouldn't weigh too heavily on
> the decision.
> 
> > Technically, I don't think there's much difference between git and
> > Mercurical, compared to how different they are from svn.
> 
> Then my vote goes to Git, simply because that's what I'm familiar with.
> 
> -Lars

Well, you get the full commit history if you use git-svn to commit to an svn 
repository. I'm not sure it deals with svn branches very well though, since svn 
treats those as separate files, and so each branch is actually a separate set of 
files, and I don't believe that git will consider them to be the same. However, 
since I always just use git-svn on the trunk of whatever svn repository I'm 
dealing with, I'm not all that experienced with dealing with how svn branches 
look in a git repository's history. And it may be that there's a way to 
specifically import an svn repository in a manner which makes all of those 
branches look as a single set of files to git. I don't know. But on the whole, 
converting from subversion to git is pretty easy. We technically use svn at 
work, but I always just use git-svn. Life is much more pleasant that way.

- Jonathan M Davis