| rev |
line source |
|
bos@559
|
1 <!-- vim: set filetype=docbkxml shiftwidth=2 autoindent expandtab tw=77 : -->
|
|
bos@26
|
2
|
|
bos@559
|
3 <preface id="chap:preface">
|
|
bos@587
|
4 <?dbhtml filename="preface.html"?>
|
|
bos@559
|
5 <title>Preface</title>
|
|
bos@26
|
6
|
|
bos@583
|
7 <sect1>
|
|
bos@583
|
8 <title>Why revision control? Why Mercurial?</title>
|
|
bos@583
|
9
|
|
bos@584
|
10 <para id="x_6d">Revision control is the process of managing multiple
|
|
bos@583
|
11 versions of a piece of information. In its simplest form, this
|
|
bos@583
|
12 is something that many people do by hand: every time you modify
|
|
bos@583
|
13 a file, save it under a new name that contains a number, each
|
|
bos@583
|
14 one higher than the number of the preceding version.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
15
|
|
bos@584
|
16 <para id="x_6e">Manually managing multiple versions of even a single file is
|
|
bos@583
|
17 an error-prone task, though, so software tools to help automate
|
|
bos@583
|
18 this process have long been available. The earliest automated
|
|
bos@583
|
19 revision control tools were intended to help a single user to
|
|
bos@583
|
20 manage revisions of a single file. Over the past few decades,
|
|
bos@583
|
21 the scope of revision control tools has expanded greatly; they
|
|
bos@583
|
22 now manage multiple files, and help multiple people to work
|
|
bos@583
|
23 together. The best modern revision control tools have no
|
|
bos@583
|
24 problem coping with thousands of people working together on
|
|
bos@583
|
25 projects that consist of hundreds of thousands of files.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
26
|
|
bos@584
|
27 <para id="x_6f">The arrival of distributed revision control is relatively
|
|
bos@583
|
28 recent, and so far this new field has grown due to people's
|
|
bos@583
|
29 willingness to explore ill-charted territory.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
30
|
|
bos@584
|
31 <para id="x_70">I am writing a book about distributed revision control
|
|
bos@583
|
32 because I believe that it is an important subject that deserves
|
|
bos@583
|
33 a field guide. I chose to write about Mercurial because it is
|
|
bos@583
|
34 the easiest tool to learn the terrain with, and yet it scales to
|
|
bos@583
|
35 the demands of real, challenging environments where many other
|
|
bos@583
|
36 revision control tools buckle.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
37
|
|
bos@583
|
38 <sect2>
|
|
bos@583
|
39 <title>Why use revision control?</title>
|
|
bos@583
|
40
|
|
bos@584
|
41 <para id="x_71">There are a number of reasons why you or your team might
|
|
bos@583
|
42 want to use an automated revision control tool for a
|
|
bos@583
|
43 project.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
44
|
|
bos@583
|
45 <itemizedlist>
|
|
bos@584
|
46 <listitem><para id="x_72">It will track the history and evolution of
|
|
bos@583
|
47 your project, so you don't have to. For every change,
|
|
bos@583
|
48 you'll have a log of <emphasis>who</emphasis> made it;
|
|
bos@583
|
49 <emphasis>why</emphasis> they made it;
|
|
bos@583
|
50 <emphasis>when</emphasis> they made it; and
|
|
bos@583
|
51 <emphasis>what</emphasis> the change
|
|
bos@583
|
52 was.</para></listitem>
|
|
bos@584
|
53 <listitem><para id="x_73">When you're working with other people,
|
|
bos@583
|
54 revision control software makes it easier for you to
|
|
bos@583
|
55 collaborate. For example, when people more or less
|
|
bos@583
|
56 simultaneously make potentially incompatible changes, the
|
|
bos@583
|
57 software will help you to identify and resolve those
|
|
bos@583
|
58 conflicts.</para></listitem>
|
|
bos@584
|
59 <listitem><para id="x_74">It can help you to recover from mistakes. If
|
|
bos@583
|
60 you make a change that later turns out to be in error, you
|
|
bos@583
|
61 can revert to an earlier version of one or more files. In
|
|
bos@583
|
62 fact, a <emphasis>really</emphasis> good revision control
|
|
bos@583
|
63 tool will even help you to efficiently figure out exactly
|
|
bos@592
|
64 when a problem was introduced (see <xref
|
|
bos@583
|
65 linkend="sec:undo:bisect"/> for details).</para></listitem>
|
|
bos@584
|
66 <listitem><para id="x_75">It will help you to work simultaneously on,
|
|
bos@583
|
67 and manage the drift between, multiple versions of your
|
|
bos@583
|
68 project.</para></listitem>
|
|
bos@583
|
69 </itemizedlist>
|
|
bos@583
|
70
|
|
bos@584
|
71 <para id="x_76">Most of these reasons are equally valid---at least in
|
|
bos@583
|
72 theory---whether you're working on a project by yourself, or
|
|
bos@583
|
73 with a hundred other people.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
74
|
|
bos@584
|
75 <para id="x_77">A key question about the practicality of revision control
|
|
bos@583
|
76 at these two different scales (<quote>lone hacker</quote> and
|
|
bos@583
|
77 <quote>huge team</quote>) is how its
|
|
bos@583
|
78 <emphasis>benefits</emphasis> compare to its
|
|
bos@583
|
79 <emphasis>costs</emphasis>. A revision control tool that's
|
|
bos@583
|
80 difficult to understand or use is going to impose a high
|
|
bos@583
|
81 cost.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
82
|
|
bos@584
|
83 <para id="x_78">A five-hundred-person project is likely to collapse under
|
|
bos@583
|
84 its own weight almost immediately without a revision control
|
|
bos@583
|
85 tool and process. In this case, the cost of using revision
|
|
bos@583
|
86 control might hardly seem worth considering, since
|
|
bos@583
|
87 <emphasis>without</emphasis> it, failure is almost
|
|
bos@583
|
88 guaranteed.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
89
|
|
bos@584
|
90 <para id="x_79">On the other hand, a one-person <quote>quick hack</quote>
|
|
bos@583
|
91 might seem like a poor place to use a revision control tool,
|
|
bos@583
|
92 because surely the cost of using one must be close to the
|
|
bos@583
|
93 overall cost of the project. Right?</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
94
|
|
bos@584
|
95 <para id="x_7a">Mercurial uniquely supports <emphasis>both</emphasis> of
|
|
bos@583
|
96 these scales of development. You can learn the basics in just
|
|
bos@583
|
97 a few minutes, and due to its low overhead, you can apply
|
|
bos@583
|
98 revision control to the smallest of projects with ease. Its
|
|
bos@583
|
99 simplicity means you won't have a lot of abstruse concepts or
|
|
bos@583
|
100 command sequences competing for mental space with whatever
|
|
bos@583
|
101 you're <emphasis>really</emphasis> trying to do. At the same
|
|
bos@583
|
102 time, Mercurial's high performance and peer-to-peer nature let
|
|
bos@583
|
103 you scale painlessly to handle large projects.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
104
|
|
bos@584
|
105 <para id="x_7b">No revision control tool can rescue a poorly run project,
|
|
bos@583
|
106 but a good choice of tools can make a huge difference to the
|
|
bos@583
|
107 fluidity with which you can work on a project.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
108
|
|
bos@583
|
109 </sect2>
|
|
bos@583
|
110
|
|
bos@583
|
111 <sect2>
|
|
bos@583
|
112 <title>The many names of revision control</title>
|
|
bos@583
|
113
|
|
bos@584
|
114 <para id="x_7c">Revision control is a diverse field, so much so that it is
|
|
bos@583
|
115 referred to by many names and acronyms. Here are a few of the
|
|
bos@583
|
116 more common variations you'll encounter:</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
117 <itemizedlist>
|
|
bos@584
|
118 <listitem><para id="x_7d">Revision control (RCS)</para></listitem>
|
|
bos@584
|
119 <listitem><para id="x_7e">Software configuration management (SCM), or
|
|
bos@583
|
120 configuration management</para></listitem>
|
|
bos@584
|
121 <listitem><para id="x_7f">Source code management</para></listitem>
|
|
bos@584
|
122 <listitem><para id="x_80">Source code control, or source
|
|
bos@583
|
123 control</para></listitem>
|
|
bos@584
|
124 <listitem><para id="x_81">Version control
|
|
bos@583
|
125 (VCS)</para></listitem></itemizedlist>
|
|
bos@584
|
126 <para id="x_82">Some people claim that these terms actually have different
|
|
bos@583
|
127 meanings, but in practice they overlap so much that there's no
|
|
bos@583
|
128 agreed or even useful way to tease them apart.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
129
|
|
bos@583
|
130 </sect2>
|
|
bos@583
|
131 </sect1>
|
|
bos@26
|
132
|
|
bos@559
|
133 <sect1>
|
|
bos@559
|
134 <title>This book is a work in progress</title>
|
|
bos@26
|
135
|
|
bos@584
|
136 <para id="x_83">I am releasing this book while I am still writing it, in the
|
|
bos@583
|
137 hope that it will prove useful to others. I am writing under an
|
|
bos@583
|
138 open license in the hope that you, my readers, will contribute
|
|
bos@583
|
139 feedback and perhaps content of your own.</para>
|
|
bos@200
|
140
|
|
bos@559
|
141 </sect1>
|
|
bos@559
|
142 <sect1>
|
|
bos@559
|
143 <title>About the examples in this book</title>
|
|
bos@200
|
144
|
|
bos@584
|
145 <para id="x_84">This book takes an unusual approach to code samples. Every
|
|
bos@559
|
146 example is <quote>live</quote>---each one is actually the result
|
|
bos@559
|
147 of a shell script that executes the Mercurial commands you see.
|
|
bos@559
|
148 Every time an image of the book is built from its sources, all
|
|
bos@559
|
149 the example scripts are automatically run, and their current
|
|
bos@559
|
150 results compared against their expected results.</para>
|
|
bos@200
|
151
|
|
bos@584
|
152 <para id="x_85">The advantage of this approach is that the examples are
|
|
bos@559
|
153 always accurate; they describe <emphasis>exactly</emphasis> the
|
|
bos@559
|
154 behaviour of the version of Mercurial that's mentioned at the
|
|
bos@559
|
155 front of the book. If I update the version of Mercurial that
|
|
bos@559
|
156 I'm documenting, and the output of some command changes, the
|
|
bos@559
|
157 build fails.</para>
|
|
bos@200
|
158
|
|
bos@584
|
159 <para id="x_86">There is a small disadvantage to this approach, which is
|
|
bos@559
|
160 that the dates and times you'll see in examples tend to be
|
|
bos@559
|
161 <quote>squashed</quote> together in a way that they wouldn't be
|
|
bos@559
|
162 if the same commands were being typed by a human. Where a human
|
|
bos@559
|
163 can issue no more than one command every few seconds, with any
|
|
bos@559
|
164 resulting timestamps correspondingly spread out, my automated
|
|
bos@559
|
165 example scripts run many commands in one second.</para>
|
|
bos@200
|
166
|
|
bos@584
|
167 <para id="x_87">As an instance of this, several consecutive commits in an
|
|
bos@559
|
168 example can show up as having occurred during the same second.
|
|
bos@559
|
169 You can see this occur in the <literal
|
|
bos@592
|
170 role="hg-ext">bisect</literal> example in <xref
|
|
bos@589
|
171 linkend="sec:undo:bisect"/>, for instance.</para>
|
|
bos@200
|
172
|
|
bos@584
|
173 <para id="x_88">So when you're reading examples, don't place too much weight
|
|
bos@559
|
174 on the dates or times you see in the output of commands. But
|
|
bos@559
|
175 <emphasis>do</emphasis> be confident that the behaviour you're
|
|
bos@559
|
176 seeing is consistent and reproducible.</para>
|
|
bos@26
|
177
|
|
bos@559
|
178 </sect1>
|
|
bos@583
|
179
|
|
bos@583
|
180 <sect1>
|
|
bos@583
|
181 <title>Trends in the field</title>
|
|
bos@583
|
182
|
|
bos@584
|
183 <para id="x_89">There has been an unmistakable trend in the development and
|
|
bos@583
|
184 use of revision control tools over the past four decades, as
|
|
bos@583
|
185 people have become familiar with the capabilities of their tools
|
|
bos@583
|
186 and constrained by their limitations.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
187
|
|
bos@584
|
188 <para id="x_8a">The first generation began by managing single files on
|
|
bos@583
|
189 individual computers. Although these tools represented a huge
|
|
bos@583
|
190 advance over ad-hoc manual revision control, their locking model
|
|
bos@583
|
191 and reliance on a single computer limited them to small,
|
|
bos@583
|
192 tightly-knit teams.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
193
|
|
bos@584
|
194 <para id="x_8b">The second generation loosened these constraints by moving
|
|
bos@583
|
195 to network-centered architectures, and managing entire projects
|
|
bos@583
|
196 at a time. As projects grew larger, they ran into new problems.
|
|
bos@583
|
197 With clients needing to talk to servers very frequently, server
|
|
bos@583
|
198 scaling became an issue for large projects. An unreliable
|
|
bos@583
|
199 network connection could prevent remote users from being able to
|
|
bos@583
|
200 talk to the server at all. As open source projects started
|
|
bos@583
|
201 making read-only access available anonymously to anyone, people
|
|
bos@583
|
202 without commit privileges found that they could not use the
|
|
bos@583
|
203 tools to interact with a project in a natural way, as they could
|
|
bos@583
|
204 not record their changes.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
205
|
|
bos@584
|
206 <para id="x_8c">The current generation of revision control tools is
|
|
bos@583
|
207 peer-to-peer in nature. All of these systems have dropped the
|
|
bos@583
|
208 dependency on a single central server, and allow people to
|
|
bos@583
|
209 distribute their revision control data to where it's actually
|
|
bos@583
|
210 needed. Collaboration over the Internet has moved from
|
|
bos@583
|
211 constrained by technology to a matter of choice and consensus.
|
|
bos@583
|
212 Modern tools can operate offline indefinitely and autonomously,
|
|
bos@583
|
213 with a network connection only needed when syncing changes with
|
|
bos@583
|
214 another repository.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
215
|
|
bos@583
|
216 </sect1>
|
|
bos@583
|
217 <sect1>
|
|
bos@583
|
218 <title>A few of the advantages of distributed revision
|
|
bos@583
|
219 control</title>
|
|
bos@583
|
220
|
|
bos@584
|
221 <para id="x_8d">Even though distributed revision control tools have for
|
|
bos@583
|
222 several years been as robust and usable as their
|
|
bos@583
|
223 previous-generation counterparts, people using older tools have
|
|
bos@583
|
224 not yet necessarily woken up to their advantages. There are a
|
|
bos@583
|
225 number of ways in which distributed tools shine relative to
|
|
bos@583
|
226 centralised ones.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
227
|
|
bos@584
|
228 <para id="x_8e">For an individual developer, distributed tools are almost
|
|
bos@583
|
229 always much faster than centralised tools. This is for a simple
|
|
bos@583
|
230 reason: a centralised tool needs to talk over the network for
|
|
bos@583
|
231 many common operations, because most metadata is stored in a
|
|
bos@583
|
232 single copy on the central server. A distributed tool stores
|
|
bos@583
|
233 all of its metadata locally. All else being equal, talking over
|
|
bos@583
|
234 the network adds overhead to a centralised tool. Don't
|
|
bos@583
|
235 underestimate the value of a snappy, responsive tool: you're
|
|
bos@583
|
236 going to spend a lot of time interacting with your revision
|
|
bos@583
|
237 control software.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
238
|
|
bos@584
|
239 <para id="x_8f">Distributed tools are indifferent to the vagaries of your
|
|
bos@583
|
240 server infrastructure, again because they replicate metadata to
|
|
bos@583
|
241 so many locations. If you use a centralised system and your
|
|
bos@583
|
242 server catches fire, you'd better hope that your backup media
|
|
bos@583
|
243 are reliable, and that your last backup was recent and actually
|
|
bos@583
|
244 worked. With a distributed tool, you have many backups
|
|
bos@583
|
245 available on every contributor's computer.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
246
|
|
bos@584
|
247 <para id="x_90">The reliability of your network will affect distributed
|
|
bos@583
|
248 tools far less than it will centralised tools. You can't even
|
|
bos@583
|
249 use a centralised tool without a network connection, except for
|
|
bos@583
|
250 a few highly constrained commands. With a distributed tool, if
|
|
bos@583
|
251 your network connection goes down while you're working, you may
|
|
bos@583
|
252 not even notice. The only thing you won't be able to do is talk
|
|
bos@583
|
253 to repositories on other computers, something that is relatively
|
|
bos@583
|
254 rare compared with local operations. If you have a far-flung
|
|
bos@583
|
255 team of collaborators, this may be significant.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
256
|
|
bos@583
|
257 <sect2>
|
|
bos@583
|
258 <title>Advantages for open source projects</title>
|
|
bos@583
|
259
|
|
bos@584
|
260 <para id="x_91">If you take a shine to an open source project and decide
|
|
bos@583
|
261 that you would like to start hacking on it, and that project
|
|
bos@583
|
262 uses a distributed revision control tool, you are at once a
|
|
bos@583
|
263 peer with the people who consider themselves the
|
|
bos@583
|
264 <quote>core</quote> of that project. If they publish their
|
|
bos@583
|
265 repositories, you can immediately copy their project history,
|
|
bos@583
|
266 start making changes, and record your work, using the same
|
|
bos@583
|
267 tools in the same ways as insiders. By contrast, with a
|
|
bos@583
|
268 centralised tool, you must use the software in a <quote>read
|
|
bos@583
|
269 only</quote> mode unless someone grants you permission to
|
|
bos@583
|
270 commit changes to their central server. Until then, you won't
|
|
bos@583
|
271 be able to record changes, and your local modifications will
|
|
bos@583
|
272 be at risk of corruption any time you try to update your
|
|
bos@583
|
273 client's view of the repository.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
274
|
|
bos@583
|
275 <sect3>
|
|
bos@583
|
276 <title>The forking non-problem</title>
|
|
bos@583
|
277
|
|
bos@584
|
278 <para id="x_92">It has been suggested that distributed revision control
|
|
bos@583
|
279 tools pose some sort of risk to open source projects because
|
|
bos@583
|
280 they make it easy to <quote>fork</quote> the development of
|
|
bos@583
|
281 a project. A fork happens when there are differences in
|
|
bos@583
|
282 opinion or attitude between groups of developers that cause
|
|
bos@583
|
283 them to decide that they can't work together any longer.
|
|
bos@583
|
284 Each side takes a more or less complete copy of the
|
|
bos@583
|
285 project's source code, and goes off in its own
|
|
bos@583
|
286 direction.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
287
|
|
bos@584
|
288 <para id="x_93">Sometimes the camps in a fork decide to reconcile their
|
|
bos@583
|
289 differences. With a centralised revision control system, the
|
|
bos@583
|
290 <emphasis>technical</emphasis> process of reconciliation is
|
|
bos@583
|
291 painful, and has to be performed largely by hand. You have
|
|
bos@583
|
292 to decide whose revision history is going to
|
|
bos@583
|
293 <quote>win</quote>, and graft the other team's changes into
|
|
bos@583
|
294 the tree somehow. This usually loses some or all of one
|
|
bos@583
|
295 side's revision history.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
296
|
|
bos@584
|
297 <para id="x_94">What distributed tools do with respect to forking is
|
|
bos@583
|
298 they make forking the <emphasis>only</emphasis> way to
|
|
bos@583
|
299 develop a project. Every single change that you make is
|
|
bos@583
|
300 potentially a fork point. The great strength of this
|
|
bos@583
|
301 approach is that a distributed revision control tool has to
|
|
bos@583
|
302 be really good at <emphasis>merging</emphasis> forks,
|
|
bos@583
|
303 because forks are absolutely fundamental: they happen all
|
|
bos@583
|
304 the time.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
305
|
|
bos@584
|
306 <para id="x_95">If every piece of work that everybody does, all the
|
|
bos@583
|
307 time, is framed in terms of forking and merging, then what
|
|
bos@583
|
308 the open source world refers to as a <quote>fork</quote>
|
|
bos@583
|
309 becomes <emphasis>purely</emphasis> a social issue. If
|
|
bos@583
|
310 anything, distributed tools <emphasis>lower</emphasis> the
|
|
bos@583
|
311 likelihood of a fork:</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
312 <itemizedlist>
|
|
bos@584
|
313 <listitem><para id="x_96">They eliminate the social distinction that
|
|
bos@583
|
314 centralised tools impose: that between insiders (people
|
|
bos@583
|
315 with commit access) and outsiders (people
|
|
bos@583
|
316 without).</para></listitem>
|
|
bos@584
|
317 <listitem><para id="x_97">They make it easier to reconcile after a
|
|
bos@583
|
318 social fork, because all that's involved from the
|
|
bos@583
|
319 perspective of the revision control software is just
|
|
bos@583
|
320 another merge.</para></listitem></itemizedlist>
|
|
bos@583
|
321
|
|
bos@584
|
322 <para id="x_98">Some people resist distributed tools because they want
|
|
bos@583
|
323 to retain tight control over their projects, and they
|
|
bos@583
|
324 believe that centralised tools give them this control.
|
|
bos@583
|
325 However, if you're of this belief, and you publish your CVS
|
|
bos@583
|
326 or Subversion repositories publicly, there are plenty of
|
|
bos@583
|
327 tools available that can pull out your entire project's
|
|
bos@583
|
328 history (albeit slowly) and recreate it somewhere that you
|
|
bos@583
|
329 don't control. So while your control in this case is
|
|
bos@583
|
330 illusory, you are forgoing the ability to fluidly
|
|
bos@583
|
331 collaborate with whatever people feel compelled to mirror
|
|
bos@583
|
332 and fork your history.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
333
|
|
bos@583
|
334 </sect3>
|
|
bos@583
|
335 </sect2>
|
|
bos@583
|
336 <sect2>
|
|
bos@583
|
337 <title>Advantages for commercial projects</title>
|
|
bos@583
|
338
|
|
bos@584
|
339 <para id="x_99">Many commercial projects are undertaken by teams that are
|
|
bos@583
|
340 scattered across the globe. Contributors who are far from a
|
|
bos@583
|
341 central server will see slower command execution and perhaps
|
|
bos@583
|
342 less reliability. Commercial revision control systems attempt
|
|
bos@583
|
343 to ameliorate these problems with remote-site replication
|
|
bos@583
|
344 add-ons that are typically expensive to buy and cantankerous
|
|
bos@583
|
345 to administer. A distributed system doesn't suffer from these
|
|
bos@583
|
346 problems in the first place. Better yet, you can easily set
|
|
bos@583
|
347 up multiple authoritative servers, say one per site, so that
|
|
bos@583
|
348 there's no redundant communication between repositories over
|
|
bos@583
|
349 expensive long-haul network links.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
350
|
|
bos@584
|
351 <para id="x_9a">Centralised revision control systems tend to have
|
|
bos@583
|
352 relatively low scalability. It's not unusual for an expensive
|
|
bos@583
|
353 centralised system to fall over under the combined load of
|
|
bos@583
|
354 just a few dozen concurrent users. Once again, the typical
|
|
bos@583
|
355 response tends to be an expensive and clunky replication
|
|
bos@583
|
356 facility. Since the load on a central server---if you have
|
|
bos@583
|
357 one at all---is many times lower with a distributed tool
|
|
bos@583
|
358 (because all of the data is replicated everywhere), a single
|
|
bos@583
|
359 cheap server can handle the needs of a much larger team, and
|
|
bos@583
|
360 replication to balance load becomes a simple matter of
|
|
bos@583
|
361 scripting.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
362
|
|
bos@584
|
363 <para id="x_9b">If you have an employee in the field, troubleshooting a
|
|
bos@583
|
364 problem at a customer's site, they'll benefit from distributed
|
|
bos@583
|
365 revision control. The tool will let them generate custom
|
|
bos@583
|
366 builds, try different fixes in isolation from each other, and
|
|
bos@583
|
367 search efficiently through history for the sources of bugs and
|
|
bos@583
|
368 regressions in the customer's environment, all without needing
|
|
bos@583
|
369 to connect to your company's network.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
370
|
|
bos@583
|
371 </sect2>
|
|
bos@583
|
372 </sect1>
|
|
bos@583
|
373 <sect1>
|
|
bos@583
|
374 <title>Why choose Mercurial?</title>
|
|
bos@583
|
375
|
|
bos@584
|
376 <para id="x_9c">Mercurial has a unique set of properties that make it a
|
|
bos@583
|
377 particularly good choice as a revision control system.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
378 <itemizedlist>
|
|
bos@584
|
379 <listitem><para id="x_9d">It is easy to learn and use.</para></listitem>
|
|
bos@584
|
380 <listitem><para id="x_9e">It is lightweight.</para></listitem>
|
|
bos@584
|
381 <listitem><para id="x_9f">It scales excellently.</para></listitem>
|
|
bos@584
|
382 <listitem><para id="x_a0">It is easy to
|
|
bos@583
|
383 customise.</para></listitem></itemizedlist>
|
|
bos@583
|
384
|
|
bos@584
|
385 <para id="x_a1">If you are at all familiar with revision control systems,
|
|
bos@583
|
386 you should be able to get up and running with Mercurial in less
|
|
bos@583
|
387 than five minutes. Even if not, it will take no more than a few
|
|
bos@583
|
388 minutes longer. Mercurial's command and feature sets are
|
|
bos@583
|
389 generally uniform and consistent, so you can keep track of a few
|
|
bos@583
|
390 general rules instead of a host of exceptions.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
391
|
|
bos@584
|
392 <para id="x_a2">On a small project, you can start working with Mercurial in
|
|
bos@583
|
393 moments. Creating new changes and branches; transferring changes
|
|
bos@583
|
394 around (whether locally or over a network); and history and
|
|
bos@583
|
395 status operations are all fast. Mercurial attempts to stay
|
|
bos@583
|
396 nimble and largely out of your way by combining low cognitive
|
|
bos@583
|
397 overhead with blazingly fast operations.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
398
|
|
bos@584
|
399 <para id="x_a3">The usefulness of Mercurial is not limited to small
|
|
bos@583
|
400 projects: it is used by projects with hundreds to thousands of
|
|
bos@583
|
401 contributors, each containing tens of thousands of files and
|
|
bos@583
|
402 hundreds of megabytes of source code.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
403
|
|
bos@584
|
404 <para id="x_a4">If the core functionality of Mercurial is not enough for
|
|
bos@583
|
405 you, it's easy to build on. Mercurial is well suited to
|
|
bos@583
|
406 scripting tasks, and its clean internals and implementation in
|
|
bos@583
|
407 Python make it easy to add features in the form of extensions.
|
|
bos@583
|
408 There are a number of popular and useful extensions already
|
|
bos@583
|
409 available, ranging from helping to identify bugs to improving
|
|
bos@583
|
410 performance.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
411
|
|
bos@583
|
412 </sect1>
|
|
bos@583
|
413 <sect1>
|
|
bos@583
|
414 <title>Mercurial compared with other tools</title>
|
|
bos@583
|
415
|
|
bos@584
|
416 <para id="x_a5">Before you read on, please understand that this section
|
|
bos@583
|
417 necessarily reflects my own experiences, interests, and (dare I
|
|
bos@583
|
418 say it) biases. I have used every one of the revision control
|
|
bos@583
|
419 tools listed below, in most cases for several years at a
|
|
bos@583
|
420 time.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
421
|
|
bos@583
|
422
|
|
bos@583
|
423 <sect2>
|
|
bos@583
|
424 <title>Subversion</title>
|
|
bos@583
|
425
|
|
bos@584
|
426 <para id="x_a6">Subversion is a popular revision control tool, developed
|
|
bos@583
|
427 to replace CVS. It has a centralised client/server
|
|
bos@583
|
428 architecture.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
429
|
|
bos@584
|
430 <para id="x_a7">Subversion and Mercurial have similarly named commands for
|
|
bos@583
|
431 performing the same operations, so if you're familiar with
|
|
bos@583
|
432 one, it is easy to learn to use the other. Both tools are
|
|
bos@583
|
433 portable to all popular operating systems.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
434
|
|
bos@584
|
435 <para id="x_a8">Prior to version 1.5, Subversion had no useful support for
|
|
bos@583
|
436 merges. At the time of writing, its merge tracking capability
|
|
bos@583
|
437 is new, and known to be <ulink
|
|
bos@583
|
438 url="http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.branchmerge.advanced.html#svn.branchmerge.advanced.finalword">complicated
|
|
bos@583
|
439 and buggy</ulink>.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
440
|
|
bos@584
|
441 <para id="x_a9">Mercurial has a substantial performance advantage over
|
|
bos@583
|
442 Subversion on every revision control operation I have
|
|
bos@583
|
443 benchmarked. I have measured its advantage as ranging from a
|
|
bos@583
|
444 factor of two to a factor of six when compared with Subversion
|
|
bos@583
|
445 1.4.3's <emphasis>ra_local</emphasis> file store, which is the
|
|
bos@583
|
446 fastest access method available. In more realistic
|
|
bos@583
|
447 deployments involving a network-based store, Subversion will
|
|
bos@583
|
448 be at a substantially larger disadvantage. Because many
|
|
bos@583
|
449 Subversion commands must talk to the server and Subversion
|
|
bos@583
|
450 does not have useful replication facilities, server capacity
|
|
bos@583
|
451 and network bandwidth become bottlenecks for modestly large
|
|
bos@583
|
452 projects.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
453
|
|
bos@584
|
454 <para id="x_aa">Additionally, Subversion incurs substantial storage
|
|
bos@583
|
455 overhead to avoid network transactions for a few common
|
|
bos@583
|
456 operations, such as finding modified files
|
|
bos@583
|
457 (<literal>status</literal>) and displaying modifications
|
|
bos@583
|
458 against the current revision (<literal>diff</literal>). As a
|
|
bos@583
|
459 result, a Subversion working copy is often the same size as,
|
|
bos@583
|
460 or larger than, a Mercurial repository and working directory,
|
|
bos@583
|
461 even though the Mercurial repository contains a complete
|
|
bos@583
|
462 history of the project.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
463
|
|
bos@584
|
464 <para id="x_ab">Subversion is widely supported by third party tools.
|
|
bos@583
|
465 Mercurial currently lags considerably in this area. This gap
|
|
bos@583
|
466 is closing, however, and indeed some of Mercurial's GUI tools
|
|
bos@583
|
467 now outshine their Subversion equivalents. Like Mercurial,
|
|
bos@583
|
468 Subversion has an excellent user manual.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
469
|
|
bos@584
|
470 <para id="x_ac">Because Subversion doesn't store revision history on the
|
|
bos@583
|
471 client, it is well suited to managing projects that deal with
|
|
bos@583
|
472 lots of large, opaque binary files. If you check in fifty
|
|
bos@583
|
473 revisions to an incompressible 10MB file, Subversion's
|
|
bos@583
|
474 client-side space usage stays constant The space used by any
|
|
bos@583
|
475 distributed SCM will grow rapidly in proportion to the number
|
|
bos@583
|
476 of revisions, because the differences between each revision
|
|
bos@583
|
477 are large.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
478
|
|
bos@584
|
479 <para id="x_ad">In addition, it's often difficult or, more usually,
|
|
bos@583
|
480 impossible to merge different versions of a binary file.
|
|
bos@583
|
481 Subversion's ability to let a user lock a file, so that they
|
|
bos@583
|
482 temporarily have the exclusive right to commit changes to it,
|
|
bos@583
|
483 can be a significant advantage to a project where binary files
|
|
bos@583
|
484 are widely used.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
485
|
|
bos@584
|
486 <para id="x_ae">Mercurial can import revision history from a Subversion
|
|
bos@583
|
487 repository. It can also export revision history to a
|
|
bos@583
|
488 Subversion repository. This makes it easy to <quote>test the
|
|
bos@583
|
489 waters</quote> and use Mercurial and Subversion in parallel
|
|
bos@583
|
490 before deciding to switch. History conversion is incremental,
|
|
bos@583
|
491 so you can perform an initial conversion, then small
|
|
bos@583
|
492 additional conversions afterwards to bring in new
|
|
bos@583
|
493 changes.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
494
|
|
bos@583
|
495
|
|
bos@583
|
496 </sect2>
|
|
bos@583
|
497 <sect2>
|
|
bos@583
|
498 <title>Git</title>
|
|
bos@583
|
499
|
|
bos@584
|
500 <para id="x_af">Git is a distributed revision control tool that was
|
|
bos@583
|
501 developed for managing the Linux kernel source tree. Like
|
|
bos@583
|
502 Mercurial, its early design was somewhat influenced by
|
|
bos@583
|
503 Monotone.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
504
|
|
bos@584
|
505 <para id="x_b0">Git has a very large command set, with version 1.5.0
|
|
bos@583
|
506 providing 139 individual commands. It has something of a
|
|
bos@583
|
507 reputation for being difficult to learn. Compared to Git,
|
|
bos@583
|
508 Mercurial has a strong focus on simplicity.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
509
|
|
bos@584
|
510 <para id="x_b1">In terms of performance, Git is extremely fast. In
|
|
bos@583
|
511 several cases, it is faster than Mercurial, at least on Linux,
|
|
bos@583
|
512 while Mercurial performs better on other operations. However,
|
|
bos@583
|
513 on Windows, the performance and general level of support that
|
|
bos@583
|
514 Git provides is, at the time of writing, far behind that of
|
|
bos@583
|
515 Mercurial.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
516
|
|
bos@584
|
517 <para id="x_b2">While a Mercurial repository needs no maintenance, a Git
|
|
bos@583
|
518 repository requires frequent manual <quote>repacks</quote> of
|
|
bos@583
|
519 its metadata. Without these, performance degrades, while
|
|
bos@583
|
520 space usage grows rapidly. A server that contains many Git
|
|
bos@583
|
521 repositories that are not rigorously and frequently repacked
|
|
bos@583
|
522 will become heavily disk-bound during backups, and there have
|
|
bos@583
|
523 been instances of daily backups taking far longer than 24
|
|
bos@583
|
524 hours as a result. A freshly packed Git repository is
|
|
bos@583
|
525 slightly smaller than a Mercurial repository, but an unpacked
|
|
bos@583
|
526 repository is several orders of magnitude larger.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
527
|
|
bos@584
|
528 <para id="x_b3">The core of Git is written in C. Many Git commands are
|
|
bos@583
|
529 implemented as shell or Perl scripts, and the quality of these
|
|
bos@583
|
530 scripts varies widely. I have encountered several instances
|
|
bos@583
|
531 where scripts charged along blindly in the presence of errors
|
|
bos@583
|
532 that should have been fatal.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
533
|
|
bos@584
|
534 <para id="x_b4">Mercurial can import revision history from a Git
|
|
bos@583
|
535 repository.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
536
|
|
bos@583
|
537
|
|
bos@583
|
538 </sect2>
|
|
bos@583
|
539 <sect2>
|
|
bos@583
|
540 <title>CVS</title>
|
|
bos@583
|
541
|
|
bos@584
|
542 <para id="x_b5">CVS is probably the most widely used revision control tool
|
|
bos@583
|
543 in the world. Due to its age and internal untidiness, it has
|
|
bos@583
|
544 been only lightly maintained for many years.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
545
|
|
bos@584
|
546 <para id="x_b6">It has a centralised client/server architecture. It does
|
|
bos@583
|
547 not group related file changes into atomic commits, making it
|
|
bos@583
|
548 easy for people to <quote>break the build</quote>: one person
|
|
bos@583
|
549 can successfully commit part of a change and then be blocked
|
|
bos@583
|
550 by the need for a merge, causing other people to see only a
|
|
bos@583
|
551 portion of the work they intended to do. This also affects
|
|
bos@583
|
552 how you work with project history. If you want to see all of
|
|
bos@583
|
553 the modifications someone made as part of a task, you will
|
|
bos@583
|
554 need to manually inspect the descriptions and timestamps of
|
|
bos@583
|
555 the changes made to each file involved (if you even know what
|
|
bos@583
|
556 those files were).</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
557
|
|
bos@584
|
558 <para id="x_b7">CVS has a muddled notion of tags and branches that I will
|
|
bos@583
|
559 not attempt to even describe. It does not support renaming of
|
|
bos@583
|
560 files or directories well, making it easy to corrupt a
|
|
bos@583
|
561 repository. It has almost no internal consistency checking
|
|
bos@583
|
562 capabilities, so it is usually not even possible to tell
|
|
bos@583
|
563 whether or how a repository is corrupt. I would not recommend
|
|
bos@583
|
564 CVS for any project, existing or new.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
565
|
|
bos@584
|
566 <para id="x_b8">Mercurial can import CVS revision history. However, there
|
|
bos@583
|
567 are a few caveats that apply; these are true of every other
|
|
bos@583
|
568 revision control tool's CVS importer, too. Due to CVS's lack
|
|
bos@583
|
569 of atomic changes and unversioned filesystem hierarchy, it is
|
|
bos@583
|
570 not possible to reconstruct CVS history completely accurately;
|
|
bos@583
|
571 some guesswork is involved, and renames will usually not show
|
|
bos@583
|
572 up. Because a lot of advanced CVS administration has to be
|
|
bos@583
|
573 done by hand and is hence error-prone, it's common for CVS
|
|
bos@583
|
574 importers to run into multiple problems with corrupted
|
|
bos@583
|
575 repositories (completely bogus revision timestamps and files
|
|
bos@583
|
576 that have remained locked for over a decade are just two of
|
|
bos@583
|
577 the less interesting problems I can recall from personal
|
|
bos@583
|
578 experience).</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
579
|
|
bos@584
|
580 <para id="x_b9">Mercurial can import revision history from a CVS
|
|
bos@583
|
581 repository.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
582
|
|
bos@583
|
583
|
|
bos@583
|
584 </sect2>
|
|
bos@583
|
585 <sect2>
|
|
bos@583
|
586 <title>Commercial tools</title>
|
|
bos@583
|
587
|
|
bos@584
|
588 <para id="x_ba">Perforce has a centralised client/server architecture,
|
|
bos@583
|
589 with no client-side caching of any data. Unlike modern
|
|
bos@583
|
590 revision control tools, Perforce requires that a user run a
|
|
bos@583
|
591 command to inform the server about every file they intend to
|
|
bos@583
|
592 edit.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
593
|
|
bos@584
|
594 <para id="x_bb">The performance of Perforce is quite good for small teams,
|
|
bos@583
|
595 but it falls off rapidly as the number of users grows beyond a
|
|
bos@583
|
596 few dozen. Modestly large Perforce installations require the
|
|
bos@583
|
597 deployment of proxies to cope with the load their users
|
|
bos@583
|
598 generate.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
599
|
|
bos@583
|
600
|
|
bos@583
|
601 </sect2>
|
|
bos@583
|
602 <sect2>
|
|
bos@583
|
603 <title>Choosing a revision control tool</title>
|
|
bos@583
|
604
|
|
bos@584
|
605 <para id="x_bc">With the exception of CVS, all of the tools listed above
|
|
bos@583
|
606 have unique strengths that suit them to particular styles of
|
|
bos@583
|
607 work. There is no single revision control tool that is best
|
|
bos@583
|
608 in all situations.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
609
|
|
bos@584
|
610 <para id="x_bd">As an example, Subversion is a good choice for working
|
|
bos@583
|
611 with frequently edited binary files, due to its centralised
|
|
bos@583
|
612 nature and support for file locking.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
613
|
|
bos@584
|
614 <para id="x_be">I personally find Mercurial's properties of simplicity,
|
|
bos@583
|
615 performance, and good merge support to be a compelling
|
|
bos@583
|
616 combination that has served me well for several years.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
617
|
|
bos@583
|
618
|
|
bos@583
|
619 </sect2>
|
|
bos@583
|
620 </sect1>
|
|
bos@583
|
621 <sect1>
|
|
bos@583
|
622 <title>Switching from another tool to Mercurial</title>
|
|
bos@583
|
623
|
|
bos@584
|
624 <para id="x_bf">Mercurial is bundled with an extension named <literal
|
|
bos@583
|
625 role="hg-ext">convert</literal>, which can incrementally
|
|
bos@583
|
626 import revision history from several other revision control
|
|
bos@583
|
627 tools. By <quote>incremental</quote>, I mean that you can
|
|
bos@583
|
628 convert all of a project's history to date in one go, then rerun
|
|
bos@583
|
629 the conversion later to obtain new changes that happened after
|
|
bos@583
|
630 the initial conversion.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
631
|
|
bos@584
|
632 <para id="x_c0">The revision control tools supported by <literal
|
|
bos@583
|
633 role="hg-ext">convert</literal> are as follows:</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
634 <itemizedlist>
|
|
bos@584
|
635 <listitem><para id="x_c1">Subversion</para></listitem>
|
|
bos@584
|
636 <listitem><para id="x_c2">CVS</para></listitem>
|
|
bos@584
|
637 <listitem><para id="x_c3">Git</para></listitem>
|
|
bos@584
|
638 <listitem><para id="x_c4">Darcs</para></listitem></itemizedlist>
|
|
bos@584
|
639
|
|
bos@584
|
640 <para id="x_c5">In addition, <literal role="hg-ext">convert</literal> can
|
|
bos@583
|
641 export changes from Mercurial to Subversion. This makes it
|
|
bos@583
|
642 possible to try Subversion and Mercurial in parallel before
|
|
bos@583
|
643 committing to a switchover, without risking the loss of any
|
|
bos@583
|
644 work.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
645
|
|
bos@584
|
646 <para id="x_c6">The <command role="hg-ext-convert">convert</command> command
|
|
bos@583
|
647 is easy to use. Simply point it at the path or URL of the
|
|
bos@583
|
648 source repository, optionally give it the name of the
|
|
bos@583
|
649 destination repository, and it will start working. After the
|
|
bos@583
|
650 initial conversion, just run the same command again to import
|
|
bos@583
|
651 new changes.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
652 </sect1>
|
|
bos@583
|
653
|
|
bos@583
|
654 <sect1>
|
|
bos@583
|
655 <title>A short history of revision control</title>
|
|
bos@583
|
656
|
|
bos@584
|
657 <para id="x_c7">The best known of the old-time revision control tools is
|
|
bos@583
|
658 SCCS (Source Code Control System), which Marc Rochkind wrote at
|
|
bos@583
|
659 Bell Labs, in the early 1970s. SCCS operated on individual
|
|
bos@583
|
660 files, and required every person working on a project to have
|
|
bos@583
|
661 access to a shared workspace on a single system. Only one
|
|
bos@583
|
662 person could modify a file at any time; arbitration for access
|
|
bos@583
|
663 to files was via locks. It was common for people to lock files,
|
|
bos@583
|
664 and later forget to unlock them, preventing anyone else from
|
|
bos@583
|
665 modifying those files without the help of an
|
|
bos@583
|
666 administrator.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
667
|
|
bos@584
|
668 <para id="x_c8">Walter Tichy developed a free alternative to SCCS in the
|
|
bos@583
|
669 early 1980s; he called his program RCS (Revision Control System).
|
|
bos@583
|
670 Like SCCS, RCS required developers to work in a single shared
|
|
bos@583
|
671 workspace, and to lock files to prevent multiple people from
|
|
bos@583
|
672 modifying them simultaneously.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
673
|
|
bos@584
|
674 <para id="x_c9">Later in the 1980s, Dick Grune used RCS as a building block
|
|
bos@583
|
675 for a set of shell scripts he initially called cmt, but then
|
|
bos@583
|
676 renamed to CVS (Concurrent Versions System). The big innovation
|
|
bos@583
|
677 of CVS was that it let developers work simultaneously and
|
|
bos@583
|
678 somewhat independently in their own personal workspaces. The
|
|
bos@583
|
679 personal workspaces prevented developers from stepping on each
|
|
bos@583
|
680 other's toes all the time, as was common with SCCS and RCS. Each
|
|
bos@583
|
681 developer had a copy of every project file, and could modify
|
|
bos@583
|
682 their copies independently. They had to merge their edits prior
|
|
bos@583
|
683 to committing changes to the central repository.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
684
|
|
bos@584
|
685 <para id="x_ca">Brian Berliner took Grune's original scripts and rewrote
|
|
bos@583
|
686 them in C, releasing in 1989 the code that has since developed
|
|
bos@583
|
687 into the modern version of CVS. CVS subsequently acquired the
|
|
bos@583
|
688 ability to operate over a network connection, giving it a
|
|
bos@583
|
689 client/server architecture. CVS's architecture is centralised;
|
|
bos@583
|
690 only the server has a copy of the history of the project. Client
|
|
bos@583
|
691 workspaces just contain copies of recent versions of the
|
|
bos@583
|
692 project's files, and a little metadata to tell them where the
|
|
bos@583
|
693 server is. CVS has been enormously successful; it is probably
|
|
bos@583
|
694 the world's most widely used revision control system.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
695
|
|
bos@584
|
696 <para id="x_cb">In the early 1990s, Sun Microsystems developed an early
|
|
bos@583
|
697 distributed revision control system, called TeamWare. A
|
|
bos@583
|
698 TeamWare workspace contains a complete copy of the project's
|
|
bos@583
|
699 history. TeamWare has no notion of a central repository. (CVS
|
|
bos@583
|
700 relied upon RCS for its history storage; TeamWare used
|
|
bos@583
|
701 SCCS.)</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
702
|
|
bos@584
|
703 <para id="x_cc">As the 1990s progressed, awareness grew of a number of
|
|
bos@583
|
704 problems with CVS. It records simultaneous changes to multiple
|
|
bos@583
|
705 files individually, instead of grouping them together as a
|
|
bos@583
|
706 single logically atomic operation. It does not manage its file
|
|
bos@583
|
707 hierarchy well; it is easy to make a mess of a repository by
|
|
bos@583
|
708 renaming files and directories. Worse, its source code is
|
|
bos@583
|
709 difficult to read and maintain, which made the <quote>pain
|
|
bos@583
|
710 level</quote> of fixing these architectural problems
|
|
bos@583
|
711 prohibitive.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
712
|
|
bos@584
|
713 <para id="x_cd">In 2001, Jim Blandy and Karl Fogel, two developers who had
|
|
bos@583
|
714 worked on CVS, started a project to replace it with a tool that
|
|
bos@583
|
715 would have a better architecture and cleaner code. The result,
|
|
bos@583
|
716 Subversion, does not stray from CVS's centralised client/server
|
|
bos@583
|
717 model, but it adds multi-file atomic commits, better namespace
|
|
bos@583
|
718 management, and a number of other features that make it a
|
|
bos@583
|
719 generally better tool than CVS. Since its initial release, it
|
|
bos@583
|
720 has rapidly grown in popularity.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
721
|
|
bos@584
|
722 <para id="x_ce">More or less simultaneously, Graydon Hoare began working on
|
|
bos@583
|
723 an ambitious distributed revision control system that he named
|
|
bos@583
|
724 Monotone. While Monotone addresses many of CVS's design flaws
|
|
bos@583
|
725 and has a peer-to-peer architecture, it goes beyond earlier (and
|
|
bos@583
|
726 subsequent) revision control tools in a number of innovative
|
|
bos@583
|
727 ways. It uses cryptographic hashes as identifiers, and has an
|
|
bos@583
|
728 integral notion of <quote>trust</quote> for code from different
|
|
bos@583
|
729 sources.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
730
|
|
bos@584
|
731 <para id="x_cf">Mercurial began life in 2005. While a few aspects of its
|
|
bos@583
|
732 design are influenced by Monotone, Mercurial focuses on ease of
|
|
bos@583
|
733 use, high performance, and scalability to very large
|
|
bos@583
|
734 projects.</para>
|
|
bos@583
|
735
|
|
bos@583
|
736 </sect1>
|
|
bos@583
|
737
|
|
bos@583
|
738 <sect1>
|
|
bos@583
|
739 <title>Colophon&emdash;this book is Free</title>
|
|
bos@26
|
740
|
|
bos@584
|
741 <para id="x_d0">This book is licensed under the Open Publication License,
|
|
bos@559
|
742 and is produced entirely using Free Software tools. It is
|
|
bos@580
|
743 typeset with DocBook XML. Illustrations are drawn and rendered with
|
|
bos@559
|
744 <ulink url="http://www.inkscape.org/">Inkscape</ulink>.</para>
|
|
bos@26
|
745
|
|
bos@584
|
746 <para id="x_d1">The complete source code for this book is published as a
|
|
bos@559
|
747 Mercurial repository, at <ulink
|
|
bos@559
|
748 url="http://hg.serpentine.com/mercurial/book">http://hg.serpentine.com/mercurial/book</ulink>.</para>
|
|
bos@559
|
749
|
|
bos@559
|
750 </sect1>
|
|
bos@559
|
751 </preface>
|
|
bos@559
|
752 <!--
|
|
bos@559
|
753 local variables:
|
|
bos@559
|
754 sgml-parent-document: ("00book.xml" "book" "preface")
|
|
bos@559
|
755 end:
|
|
bos@559
|
756 -->
|
