Moving to D

[Lars T. Kyllingstad]

On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 03:42:33 -0800, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

> 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, [...]

Here's a page that deals with importing an SVN repo in git:

  http://help.github.com/svn-importing/

Actually, based on that page, it seems Github can automatically take care 
of the whole transfer for us, if we decide to set up there.

-Lars