[Dovecot] CVS to Mercurial switch

[Timo Sirainen]

On Sat, 2007-05-19 at 14:05 -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-05-19 at 20:32 +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> > SVN is centralized, Mercurial is distributed. Distributed version  
> > control systems allow a lot of nice things.
> 
> Also curious here... Why Mercurial vs. TLA (I think that's what they're
> calling arch now?),

Last I checked Arch / TLA seemed too complex.

>  Darcs, 

It has its own weird diff format (don't know if you could disable it)
and it can use a lot of memory.

> Monotone, 

I had forgotten it even existed.

> or Git?

It seems a bit kludgy with all of its different commands and scripts.
Also I don't really like its code. It's using standard C functions for
string manipulations and in general it's using a lot with fixed size
buffers. If it wasn't written by kernel developers, I'd say it's most
likely full of buffer overflows. But since it is (was?), perhaps there
are only a few. I don't want to risk it.

Anyway, I wanted to use a version control system that I knew was going
to be usable now and would be around for a while. Mercurial seems to be
used quite a lot (Mozilla, MoinMoin, Xine, ALSA, Xen), so I think it's a
pretty safe choice.

I was also considering Bazaar, but since it was slower than Mercurial
and didn't have any big names using it, I picked Mercurial.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20070519/70bae67e/attachment.pgp