From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5167 invoked by alias); 18 Sep 2009 10:41:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 5156 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Sep 2009 10:41:15 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from lo.gmane.org (HELO lo.gmane.org) (80.91.229.12) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:41:10 +0000 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1Moatn-0002ox-Vn for ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:41:07 +0200 Received: from 89.175.180.246 ([89.175.180.246]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:41:07 +0200 Received: from osv by 89.175.180.246 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:41:07 +0200 To: ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com From: Sergei Organov Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:41:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <4AB24B97.4040204@ecoscentric.com> <4AB2A6DA.4080005@jifvik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact ecos-discuss-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-discuss-owner@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: [ECOS] Re: eCos VCS switch X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00152.txt.bz2 Jonathan Larmour writes: > Alex Schuilenburg wrote: >> >>>A switch of the public CVS repository to Mercurial would be a major >>>improvement. >>> >> >> Agreed. My initial findings are also that mercurial is the preferred >> solution. It is not as powerful as git, or even as fast, > > By "more powerful", do you mean git allows you to do anything of > significance that hg/bzr doesn't? I didn't think there was from my own > checking, but I'm prepared to be corrected. git rebase is my favorite and is very handy to maintain changes w.r.t official repository to be then contributed back. BTW, rebasing is what CVS actually does with your local changes when you do 'cvs update'. Except git rebase is much more safe and convenient. I can't tell if hg or bzr already have something similar though as they seem to borrow features from each other rather quickly. My personal order of preference is: git, hg, bzr. But once again, the differences between those 3 are minor compared to advantages any of them has compared to CVS ;-) -- Sergei. -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss