[Ffmpeg-devel] SVN dump
Mon Apr 16 02:28:23 CEST 2007
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 12:08:04AM +0200, Aurelien Jacobs wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 12:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
> Trent Piepho <xyzzy at speakeasy.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Why don't just switch to GIT ? :) I wonder what does Michael thinks about it.
> > >
> > > main problem is i know very little about git
> > > but iam surely in favor of getting rid of svn, ill move "learning git" a
> > > little up in my todo list
> > There is another SCM called Mercurial that is very similar to git. In some
> > cases it is faster and in some slower. However, it is less complex and
> > easier to use. There are few Linux kernel sub-systems (like v4l-dvb and
> > ALSA) that use Mercurial for the project, and then export their patches
> > upstream to git for inclusion in the kernel.
> > They are both much better than svn. diff, annotate, log, etc. don't use a
> > remote server and are far faster. It's also much nicer for devs who don't
> > have commit access.
> Absolutely agree.
> A few interesting facts about Mercurial:
> - size of the whole ffmpeg history: 14 MB
> - size of a working directory (ie. the whole history + a full checkout):
> 27 MB (to be compared to the 29 MB of a svn checkout which contains no
> - comparable speed to GIT
> - less complex than GIT
> - much better support for some plateform (namely win32) than GIT
> For interested people, I maintain a Mercurial conversion of ffmpeg
> repository available here: http://hg.gnuage.org/ffmpeg
> You can simply grab it with: hg clone http://hg.gnuage.org/ffmpeg
> Note that it has the same problem as the GIT conversion: it don't
> include svn:externals.
iam curious how is mercurial updated from svn? is it simple so that
people can pull from svn or non trivial and we all have to pull from you?
> For those who want to know a bit more about mercurial, you will learn
> most of what you need in something like 1/4 hour in this tutorial:
> And if you want a detailed documentation:
> (BTW: AFAIK Mercurial also have a better and more complete documentation
> than GIT)
> Has you may have understood, switching to Mercurial would makes me very
> happy, but I would already consider GIT a great improvement over SVN.
ive looked at mercurial and played a little with it and it seems to be
great, that is MUCH better then svn/cvs
what advantages does git have over mercurial?
can a mercurial repository be converted to git?
can changes with complete history be moved between different mercurial repos?
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad
people will find a way around the laws. -- Plato
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ffmpeg-devel