Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git wiki

From: Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Date: May 3, 2006, 14:29 UTC
Message-ID: <20060503142957.GA9056@spearce.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0605030934220.28543@localhost.localdomain>

Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:

Show 18 quoted lines

> On Wed, 3 May 2006, Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:
> > On 5/3/06, Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz> wrote:
> > > Dear diary, on Wed, May 03, 2006 at 10:39:07AM CEST, I got a letter
> > > where Paolo Ciarrocchi <paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com> said that...
> > > > On 5/3/06, Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > BTW, do you know why GIT has not been selected as SCM for OpenSolaris?
> > > > (they choose Mercurial).
> > > 
> > > I think it's explained somewhere in their forums (or mailing lists or
> > > whatever they actually _are_).
> > 
> > I only found the announcement, not the rationales.
> 
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/tools-discuss/2006-April/000366.html
> 
> Looks like they didn't buy the argument about the uselessness of 
> recording file renames.

The final evaluations are available from here (at the very bottom of the page):

  http://opensolaris.org/os/community/tools/scm/

It looks like Mercurial doesn't support renames either, but a lot of users are asking for it to be supported. So I don't think that's the reason. It looks more like they didn't enjoy porting GIT 1.2.2 (as 1.2.4 was found to not work in all cases) to Solaris and the tester ran into some problems with the conflict resolution support.

My own reading of the two final evaluations for GIT and Mercurial leaves me feeling like GIT is a more mature tool which is faster and more stable then Mercurial. GIT seemed to be more reliable during testing then Mercurial was, despite the cloning issue. Which makes me surprised that OpenSolaris selected Mercurial instead.

-- 
Shawn.