Linux

[Clark Hwang]

Based on your experience with Mercurial, would you say it's a solid SCM system.    Are there any quirks?   Any problems with corrupt or inaccessible repositories?
I was just about to deploy CVS just before looking into more about Mercurial.   Luckily I still have time to switch to something better.

>>> Bill Barry <after.fallout at gmail.com> 10/1/2008 8:38 AM >>>
I have found it easier to have the central repo be linux because the 
windows filesystem is case insensitive and every once in a while 
somebody commits a file which is in a different case than a file another 
person also commits (it has happened to me 4 times in the past 1500 
revisions, but we are heavily using branches). When this happens the 
easiest thing to do is to go on a case sensitive filesystem and manually 
merge the two files. So long as you have one machine running linux, this 
is an easy thing to do.

I plan on trying out ext3 as a filesystem on windows in order to make 
this issue not such a problem.

Disclaimer: I haven't bothered trying to find other solutions to this 
because the one I have works. I am pretty sure there are others.

Clark Hwang wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm interested in setting up a central repository using Mercurial and using Tortoisehg as the client.   Would it be better to set up the central repository on a Linux server or a Windows server?  Which set up would be ideal?