I'd prefer Git.
-Clint
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Marek Potociar
<marek.potociar_at_oracle.com>wrote:
> Hey Folks,
>
> For Jersey 2.x we are considering to switch our VCS from SVN into Git or
> Mercurial. Sticking to SVN is still an option
> too. FWIW, here's my take on the topic:
>
> - Functionality:
>
> SVN meets most of our existing needs today, I do miss the agile nature of
> DVCS though and ability to fix a recent commit.
>
> I don't have a clear DVCS winner. Mercurial is compact and easier to learn,
> esp. if one comes from the SVN background.
> It has superior branching and merging support compared to SVN. It's
> branching concept however seems to be seriously
> flawed as it is virtually impossible to delete named branches. Also, it is
> not as flexible as Git and configuring it's
> extensions can be painful.
>
> Git is faster than Mercurial, super flexible, and "unix-like" set of
> coherent tools sharing a common platform rather
> being one compact piece of software. It is thus bendable to most esoteric
> work flows. Also it's merging algorithm is
> ...wait for it... LEGENDARY! :) Learning to get full use of Git however
> requires time (and practice).
>
> - Documentation:
>
> SVN and Mercurial both seem to provide superior documentation compared to
> Git.
>
> - Tooling:
>
> SVN has a great tooling support and so does Git. I don't have a significant
> experience with Mercurial, but I suppose it
> will be on par with Git and SVN.
>
> - Adoption:
>
> SVN is very popular. Also Git appears to gain larger portion of mind share
> every day. Git community is very active and
> visible, e.g. github.org is especially vibrant. It has almost 10x larger
> community than bitbucket.org for Mercurial.
> Mercurial community seems to be both smaller and "quieter".
>
> So, what would you, members of the community, prefer to use going forward?
>
> [ ] SVN
> [ ] Git
> [ ] Mercurial
>
> Please cast your votes!
>
> Thanks,
> Marek
>