[OT] D's community is awesome!

[Robert Clipsham]

On 10/06/2011 22:31, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Trass3r"<un at known.com>  wrote in message news:op.vwu1q2lv3ncmek at enigma...
>> Am 10.06.2011, 13:48 Uhr, schrieb Robert Clipsham
>> <robert at octarineparrot.com>:
>>> You're probably better off for it - I used to be strongly in the
>>> mercurial camp, but having used git for a while I find I vastly prefer
>>> it, despite still not knowing how to do quite a bit with it.
>>
>> Yep, Mercurial's biggest drawback imo is that bookmarks (which let you do
>> something analogous to git's branches) aren't standard and thus aren't
>> pushed/pulled by default.
>
> Isn't cloning a sufficient equivalent to git's branches?

Cloning is a lot slower and a lot less convenient. You end up with the 
SVN style of having multiple directories to keep track of everything in, 
a complete pain. Mercurial does have branches, but they are magnitudes 
slower than in git, and even the documentation for hg recommends cloning 
if you want to do anything serious.

>> And of course github is way better than bitbucket, but that's not
>> Mercurial's fault I admit.
>
> Totally agree. Not that I'm big fan of GitHub, but yea, definitely better
> than BitBucket.

I'm subscribed to both github and bitbucket blogs (or was anyway), the 
rate at which github adds cool stuff is far greater than that of 
bitbucket, I can't help but feel bitbucket is playing catch up.

-- 
Robert
http://octarineparrot.com/