From: James Tucker <jftucker@...>
Date: 2008-03-28T01:44:32+09:00
Subject: Re: Why git instead of mercurial?


On 27 Mar 2008, at 14:21, Robert Dober wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org 
> > wrote:
>
>> * having explicit central repository is a good thing for Ruby
> Sorry to be bold for once Matz, but this sentence surprises me a lot,
> why is a single point of failure a good thing?
> What I like most about Mercurial (and distributed VCS in general) to
> have my repository on 4 different PCs and 3 pendrives, while top is
> not on all seven it is almost impossible to really lose data.
> Never been afraid of this?

I have a copy in git, so does matz, and I'm sure there are more  
people. These carry the full repo history, sufficient to rebuild an  
svn repo, or just keep in git under such a situation.

I know of many people that have checkouts under svn.

I don't think there's a problem with potential loss for something this  
widely used.

>
> Cheers
> Robert
>>
>>                                                        matz.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/
>
> ---
> Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
> Ludwig Wittgenstein
>