LWN: Comments on "Monotone 1.0 released"

Monotone 1.0 released

vonbrand — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:15:47 +0000

The separation of "database and working tree" in git is as clear as you want it to be. For convenience, you can keep it in the working tree, or you can have it separate in a bare repo.

Having grown up with RCS and then bitkeeper (could never wrap my head around CVS or SVN, perhaps brain wiring messed up?), and user of git since it was a creeping horror, I'm confortable with git as of today. Nothe that is has changed very much in the last time, a new look is probably warranted.

Yes, I should take a closer look at the alternatives today too... but I won't migrate (too much of what I'm interested in is in git (or easily accessible via git).

Monotone 1.0 released

robbe — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:23:00 +0000

Seniority has been mentioned. My personal take:

mercurial is pretty equivalent. Implementation language may influence your preference.

git has more bizarre syntax/workflow. mtn (or hg) appeal more to a person already familiar with cvs or svn. If you've been raised with git, on the other hand...

I also like the clear separation of database and working copy, that's a bit more muddled in git.

Never looked at bazaar.

Monotone 1.0 released

nlucas — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 03:02:35 +0000

Well, monotone is older (except for bazar, which was dog slow at the time) and the others ended being based on the monotone ideas.
Should not be the newer ones who should say why they are preferable?

I'm a happy monotone user since before git and mercurial were born. I never saw any strong reason to switch to one of the others.

On the other hand, I'm old enough you can say I'm just not following the times.

Monotone 1.0 released

ber — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 12:28:56 +0000

The announcement, website and FAQ seems to be missing the answer to the question: Why should I chose monotone in the times of bazaar, git and mercurial?

Does anyone know a modern comparisons of Monotone 1.0 to the usual three?