[Dovecot] CVS to Mercurial switch
rlaager at wiktel.com
Sat May 19 22:50:23 EEST 2007
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
> > 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
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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20070519/ddd682c8/attachment.pgp
More information about the dovecot