W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > December 2009

Re: Decentralized versioning system at W3C

From: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 23:37:23 +0200
To: public-qa-dev@w3.org
Message-Id: <200912202337.24122.ville.skytta@iki.fi>
On Wednesday 09 December 2009, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:

> The main two contenders seems to be Git and Mercurial; Git seems to a
> growing number of tools, and more advanced features; Mercurial seems to
> be easier to use, and possibly easier to set up on a larger number of
> platforms.
> 
> We’re interested to hear feedback on this question, in particular in the
> form of sharing experience of using them (inside or outside of the W3C
> community), and pros and cons of both systems.

I've used both, although git quite a bit more than Mercurial.  After getting 
used to git's rebase and stash features I'd rather not use a VCS that doesn't 
have those features (I'm not sure if Mercurial has them or not).  I've found 
git more intuitive overall and remember having trouble grokking how 
Mercurial's branches work, but those may be just because I've used git so much 
more than Mercurial and used pretty much only the very basic things of the 
latter.

I have no experience with either on Windows but I gather Mercurial is a winner 
there at the moment, but then again this should be verified by people who have 
actually tried it.  If making things as easy as possible on Windows is a 
priority then I guess that'd tilt the choice towards Mercurial.  I'd 
personally like to see git implemented nevertheless.
Received on Sunday, 20 December 2009 21:37:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 19 August 2010 18:12:50 GMT