[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Mercurial vs. git
From: |
olafBuddenhagen |
Subject: |
Re: Mercurial vs. git |
Date: |
Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:11:26 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) |
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 10:47:26AM +0100, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 5. November 2009 13:56:09 schrieb
> olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net:
> > My opinion is that there is no "one size fits all" here.
>
> My opinion is that there's quite a neat sweet spot between the two
> extremes -
I don't believe this. There is a good reason why for most tasks, there
are both "simple" programs for casual users and complex programs for
"professionals". I don't see why revision control would be different.
-antrik-
- Re: Mercurial vs. git, olafBuddenhagen, 2009/11/03
- Re: Mercurial vs. git, Arne Babenhauserheide, 2009/11/04
- Re: Mercurial vs. git, olafBuddenhagen, 2009/11/08
- Re: Mercurial vs. git, Arne Babenhauserheide, 2009/11/09
- Re: Mercurial vs. git, Michal Suchanek, 2009/11/09
- Re: Mercurial vs. git,
olafBuddenhagen <=
- Re: Mercurial vs. git, Michal Suchanek, 2009/11/11
- Re: Mercurial vs. git, Arne Babenhauserheide, 2009/11/11
- Re: Mercurial vs. git, Michael Banck, 2009/11/11
- Re: Mercurial vs. git, Arne Babenhauserheide, 2009/11/12
- Re: Mercurial vs. git, olafBuddenhagen, 2009/11/14