git vs mercurial

[James Laver]

I used mercurial in a nondistributed fashion at $previous_work and that was
a disaster. One guy kept pushing every 30 seconds and I couldn't get a
commit in edgeways. Mercurial will offer to auto-branch if you don't merge
to the head of the tree before pushing. When someone is committing like mad,
it's hard to keep up to date trying to commit, and then you're left to clean
up useless soft branches. Frankly mercurial sucks at topic branches, and the
only option is to have multiple copies of the repo.

Git I'm still completely loving. I'm also a satisfied github customer for my
private stuff. For the minimal cost, it's not worth running your own server.
Git does more then mercurial and it's noticeably faster (especially when you
have large binary blobs in the repository, something mercurial handles
abominably). Github on top of that makes git the obvious choice for me.

As regards svn integration, git-svn makes it stupidly easy, easier than
mercurial.

--James

Sent from my android phone, please forgive my brevity.

On 9 Nov 2009 21:05, "Edmund von der Burg" <evdb at ecclestoad.co.uk> wrote:

So I'm planning to move away from svk.

Should I go with git or mercurial - I hear good things about both.

Cheers,
  Edmund.