Weekly Edition
Return to the Development page
| |||||||||||
Mercurial 1.0 released
The 1.0 release of the Mercurial source code management system has been announced.
Mercurial has been in production use in some time, but this release adds a
number of new features and performance improvements anyway; see the
announcement for details.
(Log in to post comments)
Mercurial 1.0 released Posted Mar 25, 2008 13:49 UTC (Tue) by tekNico (subscriber, #22) [Link] Yay Mercurial! Arguably (by me ;-) ) the best Distributed Version Control System on Earth reaches maturity. It is simple: a clean conceptual extension of Subversion, retaining the same commands, and adding the strict minimum. Simpler than Bazaar-NG, much simpler than git. It is fast: almost as fast as git, much faster than Bazaar-NG; written by Linux kernel hackers. It is powerful: it can do almost everything that git does, with the help of extensions. It is cross-platform: it runs natively on all major operating systems, including Windows. It is popular: used by many major FLOSS projects. It is frugal: its repositories are among the smallest. It is clean: its code is small, mostly written in Python, and easy to use programmatically. Its only significant drawback is its incomplete integration with Subversion: it can clone and pull from SVN repositories, but cannot yet push directly to them. If you need a VCS, try Mercurial: you won't be disappointed. :-)
Mercurial 1.0 released Posted Mar 25, 2008 16:36 UTC (Tue) by marduk (subscriber, #3831) [Link] Nice summary. How come your marketing seems better than the official release? ;-)
Mercurial 1.0 released Posted Mar 25, 2008 21:10 UTC (Tue) by tekNico (subscriber, #22) [Link] Because I can afford not to be politically correct. ;-)
Mercurial 1.0 released Posted Mar 25, 2008 17:40 UTC (Tue) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] Hmm, so Mercurial is intended as the natural upgrade from Subversion just as Subversion is the natural upgrade from CVS. I never knew that. I see there is even <http://tortoisehg.sourceforge.net/> for Windows.
Mercurial 1.0 released Posted Mar 25, 2008 18:11 UTC (Tue) by felixrabe (guest, #50514) [Link] I don't count "unable to push" as a "natural upgrade", maybe it is a conceptual extension though. git-svn let me push code to SVN 9 months ago, but that reeks like the start of a flame war, so let's not, ok? :) Git clearly is NOT ... neither upgrade nor extension ... anything like SVN, by clear (Linus') intent. (Food for another flame war, oh well.)
Mercurial 1.0 released Posted Mar 25, 2008 18:28 UTC (Tue) by zooko (subscriber, #2589) [Link] Tailor -- http://wiki.darcs.net/DarcsWiki/Tailor -- can stitch together patches from SVN into Mercurial or vice versa, as well as many other version control tools. See the tailor page for a pretty colorful table.
Mercurial 1.0 released Posted Mar 25, 2008 22:21 UTC (Tue) by rpayne (guest, #44796) [Link] Perhaps someone would take on the task of attempting to write an objective, in-depth comparison of some of the distributed VCSs, particularly of Git and Mercurial. I know some have been written in the past, but those I've found are getting quite dated.
DVCSes reviewed Posted Mar 25, 2008 23:02 UTC (Tue) by maney (subscriber, #12630) [Link] Although not written to your specifications, this is timely and, I think, illuminates some important points about git and mercurial (as well as some other DVCSes). The most recent few are more or less specifically about git (in particular, what Elijah sees as problems (or is that a feature?) of git), but the earlier posts are more about examining some leading contenders with an eye towards choosing one to use.Elijah's blog, tag: version-control
DVCSes reviewed Posted Mar 28, 2008 11:13 UTC (Fri) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link] Really good blog, thank you for that link.
VCS comparisons Posted Mar 26, 2008 0:06 UTC (Wed) by ldo (subscriber, #40946) [Link]
Could this be the sort of thing you're looking for?
VCS comparisons Posted Mar 26, 2008 2:07 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] HTML version here: http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/version-control/version-control.html
VCS comparisons Posted Mar 27, 2008 19:03 UTC (Thu) by vmole (subscriber, #111) [Link] Unfortunately, it doesn't actually review either git or mercurial, although it does mention them favourably. I'd guess it's a work in progress, and ESR has been busy with other things lately.
Mercurial 1.0 released Posted Mar 27, 2008 12:25 UTC (Thu) by jfj (guest, #37917) [Link] Linus is actually using git to maintain the kernel which is the biggest open source project in existance, with the fastest development rate and the highest number of developers. Also, linus has extreme experience in the coordination of tons of patches from thousands of different people for more than 10 years. Given this situation where a lead developer of the VCS is also the lead developer of the largest OSS project and this project is the primary testcase of the VCS tool and the quality of the VCS tool is important for the evolution of linux (which has some very important "customers"), I trust that git works :) What people say about "the website is not www.git.org" and "it doesn't have an eclipse plugin" and "it doesn't compile with Visual C++ 9.0" is pure hype imho. Either you care about project managment or not. I think this is a pretty good, in-depth, comparison :)
Mercurial 1.0 released Posted Mar 27, 2008 14:33 UTC (Thu) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] Even if it were true that the Linux kernel is the biggest open source project (it isn't), and Linus actually did much Git development these days (he doesn't), it doesn't automatically follow that Git is the best VCS tool for everybody. It may be the case that Git is very good for huge projects, but another system might be better for small or medium-scale ones. For example, since we're talking about Mercurial here: Mercurial does most of what Git does in a way that is very accessible to casual users, especially converts from CVS or Subversion, and is based on some very nice Python code that is easy to understand and re-use. This should also count for something. Mercurial runs well on Windows, too. And it packs some serious muscle, besides -- anything that can handle the requirements of OpenSolaris and Mozilla can't be that bad in the performance department, either.
Mercurial 1.0 released Posted Mar 27, 2008 14:35 UTC (Thu) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link] > Linus is actually using git to maintain the kernel which is the biggest open source project in existance, with the fastest development rate and the highest number of developers. Also, linus has extreme experience in the coordination of tons of patches from thousands of different people Which means that speed & merging are the main priorities for Linux kernel and therefore for Git. Other projects have other priorities. > Given this situation where a lead developer of the VCS is also the lead developer of the largest OSS project [...] > I think this is a pretty good, in-depth, comparison :) It's somewhat inaccurate. Linus did the initial Git development, but he isn't maintaining it.
Mercurial 1.0 released Posted Mar 28, 2008 16:52 UTC (Fri) by zooko (subscriber, #2589) [Link] Here's a subjective, shallow comparison of all of the open source, decentralized VCs, including git and Mercurial: https://zooko.com/revision_control_quick_ref.html
Mercurial 1.0 released Posted Mar 28, 2008 16:53 UTC (Fri) by zooko (subscriber, #2589) [Link] P.S. My personal favorite continues to be darcs, but only the pre-release of the greatly enhanced darcs version 2, not the current stable release of darcs version 1.
|
|||||||||||