Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
Distributed version control systems are highly resilient against loss. In the normal mode of operation, everyone who checks out the repository gets a full copy of the history. If the master is lost for whatever reason, the community can designate any sufficiently recent copy as the new master.
BTW, there are tools for synchronizing changes between mercurial and git -- the maintainer can (for instance) use git as the master, but they, or anyone else so motivated, can clone it into hg, and both copies have the full change history. And the reverse is also possible (master in hg, slave in git).
Personally I run Hg locally simply because it works transparently on both Linux and Windows, something that git simply does not support ( tools are EITHER linux or windows ). But I don't have any problem simply cloning from a git repository and posting changes back ... it all just works transparently from Hg. Working the other way however is something of a pig as using hg from git support is simply not as good as hg using git ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php