[OLPC-devel] OLPC development project organization. Status calls? Other techniques?

[David Woodhouse]

On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 17:35 +0200, Ivan Krstic wrote:
> The general thinking is that Mercurial is portable while git isn't, and
> git's learning curve and default porcelain are sucky, while Mercurial is
> very friendly.

Git is portable and runs on Windows -- it'll run anywhere you can build
POSIX code, and that includes Cygwin. I bet a 'Win32' native version
wouldn't be particularly hard either, if anyone saw any real point in
that. Certainly, I believe it can handle the case-insensitivity of
Windows (and MacOS) file systems.

Git's "default porcelain" has historically sucked donkey balls, but is a
lot less sucky than it used to be. I've recently stopped using cogito
and started using git alone, because it's so much nicer than it was.

But again, I'm not really in a position to judge the learning curve of
git having been playing with it from the start. I _would_ suggest that
the learning curve is a highly subjective thing and not really an
overriding reason for doubling the number of SCMs we use though.

> Perhaps the best thing to do at this point is to go with git unless
> someone screams about it being too complicated, and then possibly keep
> our eyes open towards the bzr/hg combination in the future.

I'm inclined to agree.
 
-- 
dwmw2