On 9/16/2015 5:20 AM, Oleg Broytman wrote: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 07:44:28PM +0000, Augie Fackler <raf at durin42.com> wrote: >> There are a lot of reasons to prefer one tool over another. Common ones are >> familiarity, simplicity, and power. > > Add here documentation, speed, availability of extensions and > 3rd-party tools, hosting options (both locally installable and web > services). For me, the killer 3rd party tool in favor of hg is TortoiseHg, which I use on Windows. As far as I know (I did check a bit), there is no equivalent for git on Windows. For me, the evaluation should be between hg+TortoiseHG versus git+???. For instance, having the DAG nicely displayed is especially important given the CPython repository policy of 1 head per branch and all commits on maintenance branches merged forward. A week ago, someone left an unmerged 3.5 commit. When I opened THG and looked at the graph, it was immediately obvious. About 6 clicks and it was merged forward, committed, and pushed. To me, the idea of having to instead type (and likely, mistype) 3 commands is unacceptible. -- Terry Jan Reedy
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4