[Gllug] Mercurial or Subversion for single user?

[Matthew Smith]

On 23/03/2010 00:13, gvim wrote:
> I'm looking to start using a revision control system for my work which usually involves:
>
> - Work at home on code project
> - rsync to laptop
> - Take project away on laptop at weekend
> - Return and rsync back to desktop
>
> Subversion, Git and Mercurial seem to be the most popular but a cursory glance at Git suggests it's well beyond what I need so that leaves Subversion and Mercurial. Subversion is client/server whereas Mercurial is distributed but the distinction may not be relevant in a single-user scenario. I read Subversion has/had some renaming issues but didn't delve into it too deeply.
>
> So, what would be the best option. I'm inclined to go with Mercurial at this stage.

I've been using Mercurial (Hg) for my own project (QTM) since about 2008 
I think (before that, I used SVN).  It's very easy to transfer from one 
to another, but the biggest advantage is that the repositories are very 
lightweight and you aren't dependent on any central server.  You can use 
branches, for example, on one copy of the project without it affecting 
the master repo, which you can't do on SVN (actually, some people use 
Git or Hg to do that with SVN).

With SVN, tags and branches are based on copying the entire source to a 
separate directory, which doesn't happen in Hg (or any other distributed 
VCS); tags in particular are just that: names on a particular change 
commit.  Hg also has good online documentation.  I would recommend it 
over SVN for new projects.

Regards,

Matt Smith

-- 

http://www.blogistan.co.uk/qt/

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug