On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Jeremy <tclug at lizakowski.com> wrote: > I'm leaning toward Mercurial. It seems simpler than git, and has comparable > > performance. Me too. Working on moving our company away from SVN right now. Branching was a killer for us and the SVN method of branching just was not as easy or as attractive as mercurial. > The only problem (with both mercurial and git) is authentication. With svn, > I have passwords set up for each person. But with distributed systems, there > is > no central server, and code exchanges can happen ad-hoc, so there is no way > to identify who is submitting code. User identity is set via a text field in > the local config file. This is more of an implementation issue and I don't think you should be relying on your version control system to ensure the proper code is getting submitted. My $0.02, skip subversion and go straight to either git or mercurial. If you have developers/users who need a decent GUI client then I'd go with mercurial and install TortoiseHG. Adam, I think it's great your introducing people to version control and as one or more people have mentioned they can always use import tools to move on. Mercurial in my experience has more similar commands to SVN than git and is therefore IMO a little easier to transition to. Either way glad to see people are still meeting. Nice work, Jeremy!