|
|
|
|
|
|
by ww520
1961 days ago
|
|
|
I've briefly used Mercurial and found it to be slower than Git in large repos. Mercurial has the concept of changeset (similar to Perforce) where the changeset is actually stored, while Git's "changeset" is computed as needed from two commits. Branch in Git is clear and straight forward, and is easily malleable, while Mercurial's branch is part of the version storage and cannot be changed or removed. |
|
|