[svk-devel] Re: Mercurial (and NOT svk) chosen as Distributed SCM for OpenSolaris... Do we "Know" the reasons for rejection?

[Pazu]

F. Javier Jarava <jjarava <at> secuware.com> writes:

> The thing is, I've been trying to find the reasons they had for rejecting
> svk, because I believe the objections they found would be usefult to know.
> Anybody has any leads on this?

Reading the report for other tools, the fact that SVK is written in perl seems
to be a drawback for them. One of the requirements is "implementation
expertise", and the use of perl was criticized e.g. in the GIT report, and
although hg is written in python, the evaluator said "at least it's not perl".

Their decision sounds pretty dumb to me. hg looks good, but it has it's share of
problems, some of which are quite important to me. For example, hg has trouble
merging binary files (it will try to merge them as text) and doesn't follow
renames on conflicts.

Given that subversion was chosen as their centralized SCM solution, one would
think that choosing SVK for distributed development was a no brainer.
Apparently, we were wrong. Oh well...

-- Pazu