FWIW, I have been very impressed with Git and have found this resources
extremely helpful: http://progit.org/book/
That being said, Windows support is second-class (or worse) and its
probably my ownly concern about git. I have only used mercurial a few
times, but don't have a problem with it.
I agree with you that either option is better than cvs and probably
subversion, at least for a project like this. So I would encourage you
to go for it. The sooner the better. :)
"Whether, then, you eat or drink or
whatever you do, do all to the glory
of God." 1 Cor 10:31
Josh Nisly wrote:
Cygwin does not count as good support.
I'm biased toward Mercurial for several reasons:
* It appears to value ease of use over flexibility. rdiff-backup does
not have the same needs as the linux kernel; the development of rdiff-backup has long
been one or two core maintainers, with others contributing small
patches on and off. Most of these contributes are one or two line
patches for bugs in certain situations.
* I understand that there are projects
to use git on other platforms, but frankly they still seem
I really don't want to start yet another git-vs-hg debate; I think most
of the developers would prefer either one over the current setup.
Unless there are good reasons why hg wouldn't work for specific
rdiff-backup workflows, I suggest that we go with it and move on to
other things (more about this in another email.)
Jernej Simončič wrote:
On Monday, April 5, 2010, 15:43:07, Josh Nisly wrote:
The last time I checked, git didn't have great support for Windows.
There's msysgit at <http://code.google.com/p/msysgit/> and TortoiseGIT
for Explorer integration: <http://code.google.com/p/tortoisegit/>, and
as far as I can see, they work decently (or, you could always use git
rdiff-backup-users mailing list at address@hidden
Wiki URL: http://rdiff-backup.solutionsfirst.com.au/index.php/RdiffBackupWiki