Subject: Re: Deciding between Git/Mercurial

From: Robin Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 20:01:47 +0200

söndag 27 september 2009 14:24:32 skrev Anteru <[email-masked]>:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm currently evaluating DVCS for a project, and we're at a point where
> it comes down to either Mercurial or Git. Right now, I'm advocating for
> Git, while my co-workers like Mercurial, so I'd like to provide some
> good arguments in favor of git. Unfortunately, I'm not a git expert, so
> I hope I can get some help here ...

You have to read carefully. This (or the mercurial list) may not be the
most objective sources of information.

> First of all, what's the matter with git and Windows, is there some
> long-term commitment to make git work on Windows as well as on Linux?

Besides msysgit there is JGit and a port of it to C# (and  thus any dotnet-ish 
language). The msysgit teams seems very committed and passionate about
the project, but they need more assistance from genuine Windows users. Note
that the current model of file locking can never work as well on Windows
as it does on Unix. Something better is needed for flawless operation.

> I'm using msysgit on Windows, and personally I'm happy with it, but my
> co-workers constantly nag that Mercurial has superior portability ...

Might be somewhat true, but msysgit works very well. Not sure how
mercurial handles unicode issues. CRLF issues seems to be ignored (not handled).

> Mercurial's revision number system: With git, I get an SHA1 hash for
> every commit, but it's not possible to see whether Hash1 is newer than
> Hash2, while Mecurial also adds a running number to each commit. What's

But those numbers cannot be communicated since they are local to your
clone.

> the rationale behind this decision for git, and is it possible to
> emulate Mercurial's behavior somehow?

git-cvsserver has to do something along those line  The numbering is
per file.

Maintainers tend to tag versions using the common numbered schem
and that is typically enough.

-- robin