ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices; to view the full web page, click HERE.

Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

DVCS ? (All about Git, Mercurial-Hg and the like...)

<< < (5/39) > >>

Armando:
Hmmmm. I probably shouldn't but I'm currently looking at Git. Who's working with Git here ? Are there reasons why you chose it over Mercurial or Bazaar ?

(Moving a function from one file to another and Git can tell you the history of that single function across the move... ? Really ? Sounds appealing. I guess this is where content tracking (instead of file tracking) shines.)

f0dder:
I've settled on Git for moving fSekrit forwards, but that's mainly because of Git's "blow off your legs" power with regards to history rewriting - I want to make the codebase public, but retain no memory in the public codebase from the non-public versions. Yet, at the same time, I want the private repository to have FULL history, and do that without committing future versions to both public and private repositories. Git supports that (even if I haven't worked out the details of how to set it up 100% :)).

History of a single function that moves? Interesting. That's not something inherent in how git stores the version history, though, unless I've missed something - Git stores the full version of each file for each commit, whereas both subversion and Mercurial store changesets (iirc Mercurial also stores a full-version "every once in a while" so moving between versions doesn't become too slow). But IOW, if Git can do it, it's gotta be history analyzing magic smartness that could potentially be done by everybody else too?

From what I've seen from various comparisons, Git and Mercurial offer most of the same features, as long as you don't need the ├╝ber-wicked geek functionality (Mercurial pretty much won't let you blow your legs off). Also seems like there's not massive speed differences for "normal" size projects.

Git seems a bit more down and dirty, and the tortoise version still isn't as polished as the tortoise versions of other version control systems... it still shows a bit that Git was originally a whole bunch of shell scripts, instead of designing it "properly" as a C/C++ library with a "proper" front-end :)

Ath:
I probably shouldn't but I'm currently looking at Git.
-Armando (March 04, 2011, 03:19 PM)
--- End quote ---
Oh yes, you should, if you have the time, resources and interest in it.
Making a more educated choice now (early/pre-start) is way better than to change half way through your project, if you then discover a feature in the other solution you absolutely must have, for whatever reason.

housetier:
I use git with great success, but it does have drawbacks, namely poor support for Windows platform.

It is very fast even with large repositories.

AFAIK mercurial has much wider platform support than git, but is also rather slow. This is from hearsay though.

I chose git at that time because it was the new shit.

Shades:
The 'portable Git preview' software (for Windows) you can get from softpedia looks to be very promising.


And together with SmartGit (free for personal use) it starts to look quite nice as well.

One hell of lot better than WinCVS at least  ;)

**EDIT
Added the SmartGit part.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version