[Dovecot] CVS to Mercurial switch

[Richard Laager]

On Sat, 2007-05-19 at 22:31 +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> 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.

I've never played with that one.

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

Our beef with Darcs was that some operations take FOREVER to complete.
We couldn't wait for the heat death of the universe to get our old
history imported.

> > Monotone, 
> 
> I had forgotten it even existed.

We're using this for Pidgin, which is why I asked.

> It seems a bit kludgy with all of its different commands and scripts.

I tend to agree with this.

> 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.

I should start diving into the Dovecot code and learn something. ;)

> 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.

Ubuntu uses it, I believe.

I'm sure Mercurial is a fine choice. I should look into it sometime.

Richard
-------------- 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/ddd682c8/attachment.pgp