Mercurial Support Anyone?

I've played around with Mercurial, and it looks like it would be great for large open-source projects, but less good than Subversion for almost everyone else. Offline use is quite nice, but I've already got an LVCS that mostly covers those use cases. Certainly would make a great entry for the next plugin contest.

--Dave Griffith

There's a wishlist for the upcoming plugin contest:

Blog entry:
http://blogs.jetbrains.com/idea/2007/04/intellij-ideal-plugin-contest-2007-wish-list/

Actual wishlist:
http://plugins.intellij.net/wishlist/

Hi, just wonder what vcs could be worse than subversion for any project.

patchsets are natural to mercurial, yet it integrates smoothly to code review process.

what could be better for larger enterprise project I'm working on?
Subversion? oh no... we finally decided to stay with cvs and wait till mercurial will get tooling support.

Hi, just wonder what vcs could be worse than
subversion for any project.

You clearly never used CVS, VSS, or, god forbid, PVCS.

Just for my curiosity, could you explain a bit why Subversion has such "oh no"?

We are considering transition from cvs to svn, so I would like to know about svn issues.

well basicly for the following reasons.

1. tagging operation means copy this doesn't plays well in situation of doble tagging:
first you make a tag with
svn cp svn://..../trunk svn://..../tags/my_tag
and this is working as expected. next someone.. types exactly the same command
svn cp svn://..../trunk svn://..../tags/my_tag
oops now you have tags/my_tag/trunk created silently (but this is not what you wanted to see!! is it better than cvs? hell no

2. all these lengthly urls... why the hell I have to type them???

3. move is not atomic! it's a copy + delete operation. Hence if you're moving a file and someone else edited it's content you've got conflict. Is it somehow better than cvs?

4. well this is almost endless list :) I didn't even start to blame on working copy format which is horrible, yet pluggable :))

Mercurial looks very promising when I looked at it last year.

The main project I work on has 3 different geographically teams (Silicon Valley, London, Bangalore) working on it, and we would like to use Mercurial decentralized repositories,
but we can't think about switching until both IntelliJ and Eclipse support it. Eclipse has a plugin but it's barebones. The Netbeans one looks better. Also, Mercurial itself is still on the bleeding edge, and may not be as stable as CVS/SVN, so realistically we probably won't switch for a couple years even with the plugin support.

Bah, bullshit. SVN is not perfect but it's 1000 times better than CVS.

1. tagging operation means copy this doesn't plays well in situation of doble tagging:
first you make a tag with
svn cp svn://..../trunk svn://..../tags/my_tag
and this is working as expected. next someone.. types exactly the same command
svn cp svn://..../trunk svn://..../tags/my_tag
oops now you have tags/my_tag/trunk created silently (but this is not what you wanted to see!! is it better than cvs? hell no

- well, this is a centralized system... when actually sending commands that operate on the server itself, you have to be careful


2. all these lengthly urls... why the hell I have to type them???

- you ONLY have to type urls when you're dealing with server-side commands. update/add/delete/commit (which are 95% of the commands developers run) don't need urls.


3. move is not atomic! it's a copy + delete operation. Hence if you're moving a file and someone else edited it's content you've got conflict. Is it somehow better than cvs?

- move is atomic (it will either happen or not, never partially happen). There is a problem with the copy & delete, but being atomic is A HUGE improvement over CVS. Not to mention that EVERY OTHER operation is also atomic, which is not the case in CVS.