Git vs Mercurial?

[Siddharth Patil]

Which one do you prefer? What are the pros and cons of each, in your experience?

Go.

--
Siddharth Patil

[Sam Agnew]

Use Git

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USACS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ru_cs+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ru...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ru_cs?hl=en-US.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Eric Meadow]

Git. Always git.

--

[Josh Matthews]

Short answer: I concur, use Git.

Long answer: they're pretty similar. I've heard Mercurial described as "Git lite", which seems pretty accurate. If you never use anything other than push pull and commit, then you probably won't notice a difference. However, if you ever want to use some of the more advanced features, Git allows you much more fine grained control over the repo and history. Even if you don't want to use the more advanced stuff, Git seems to be more widely used in the open source scene anyway.

[Sameen Jalal]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=git+vs+mercurial

:wq

[Siddharth Patil]

I already googled it; I wanted answers from actual people lol (which I did get, thanks guys)

I'm trying to conceptualize a DVCS-based workflow for a non-code text-based project. Like a novel or textbook. Git is damn powerful, but Mercurial's simpler nature seems more attractive. I'm not sure I'd need all the features of Git, so I wouldn't want to commit (no pun intended) to using it.

Actually, in the beginning, I was a hardcore fan of Bazaar (although I didn't code much, so I never really got to use it.) It was what enlightened me about the world of distributed VCS.

Siddharth Patil

[Siddharth Patil]

Yeah, I'm just gonna go with Git. It's got the flexibility I need. Thanks again guys. :-)

--
Siddharth Patil