Re: Version control
Daniel Pittman <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.user-groups.slug.chat |
|---|---|
| Organization | I know I put it down here, somewhere. |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Erik de Castro Lopo <[email protected]> writes: > Alan L Tyree wrote: >> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:49:36 +1100 >> Erik de Castro Lopo <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Alan L Tyree wrote: >> > >> > > Hi all, >> > > Looking for some advice. I have used RCS version control for writing >> > > LaTeX documents for some time, but am looking at the advantages of >> > > using a distributed version control system. [...] >> > I find them all a PITA, but of all the ones I've tried, Bzr is >> > the least painful :-). [...] >> In what way did you find them a PITA? > > They all get in the way, but they are all (even CVS) better than > having no revision control. > > Specifically, for the distributed ones: > > Git - I hate the command line and command structure. Its just difficult > to remember. Generally, a small user has about three or five commands to remember — but this is, in part, because git has worked on improving the UI in more recent versions. > Darcs - Occasionally takes forever to do some operations. > Hg - Command line/structure suckage. Better than Git, slightly worse > than Bzr. *nod* > Arch - Oh my fscking god what were they thinking????? Using this will help get over the pain of using git, by showing you how much worse it could be. :) > The one I've had the most experience with Bzr, its little things. > Standard everyday things work and work well. Things outside the norm > can be difficult or impossible. Mercurial and git certainly do better on that front. They don't impose as much, although Bzr does claim to be equally flexible. I, also, never found it so. Regards, Daniel -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html