[squeak-dev] More distributed version control

Bert Freudenberg bert at freudenbergs.de
Tue Apr 28 09:07:50 UTC 2009

On 07.04.2009, at 10:02, Göran Krampe wrote:

> Hi!
> Frank Shearar wrote:
>> "Göran Krampe" <goran at krampe.se> writes:
>>> Hi!
>>> Andreas Raab wrote:
>>>> Folks -
>>>> Just as a side note to anyone who is interested in distributed  
>>>> version
>>>> control systems, I thought it's interesting to see that they get  
>>>> more
>>>> and more widely adopted. This just popped up on Python-dev:
>>>> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-March/087931.html
>>>> I'm wondering if this has any impact on our thinking with respect  
>>>> to
>>>> Monticello, change sets etc?
>>> I am interested in these beasts, and Keith also has quite a bit of
>>> experience. We use Hg in Gjallar - although very little. I have also
>>> used bzr a bit, no git yet - but it is just a matter of time since
>>> Github has really brought git "to the masses". Those are the three  
>>> "top
>>> contenders" although Darcs has a special place in my heart, not  
>>> for it's
>>> magical smarts (well, its cherry picking is way cool of course) but
>>> mainly for its tremendous easy of use.
>> What Göran said.
>> I've chosen to recommend Mercurial for my work purposes because  
>> darcs likes
>> ssh servers on those machines that will _serve_ repositories, and  
>> I've yet
>> to find an easy way to run said servers on Windows machines.
>> That cherry-picking business of darcs', though: man, that just  
>> rocks. When
>> you say "darcs record" it walks you through the hunks in a file,  
>> and you can
>> just say "yes, I'll record this hunk, no, not that hunk". (I'd  
>> dearly love
>> to see something like this in MC!)
> Note that Mercurial has this "chunk wise" recording now too, by  
> default I think. But that is *not* what I meant with cherry picking  
> - but I presume you know that, I meant the concept that you can pull  
> patches "out of order" from another repo. AFAIK Darcs is alone in  
> this, although the others have "similar inferior mechanisms" like  
> transplant, rebase etc.
> Btw, I also have recommended Mercurial mainly because its simplicity  
> in combination with good Windows support in the form of TortoiseHg  
> etc, AFAIK git is trailing on that department.
> regards, Göran

Right. An analysis by Google engineers comes to the same conclusion:


They are going to support Mercurial on Google code (in addition to  

- Bert -

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list