Mercurial > hgbook
changeset 414:635d7c0fcac3
Merge
| author | Bryan O'Sullivan <bos@serpentine.com> |
|---|---|
| date | Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:06:41 -0700 |
| parents | a168daed199b (current diff) 231c8469a0ec (diff) |
| children | 1d277d6aa187 |
| files | en/intro.tex |
| diffstat | 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) [+] |
line wrap: on
line diff
--- a/en/intro.tex Tue Aug 26 13:55:04 2008 -0700 +++ b/en/intro.tex Tue Aug 26 14:06:41 2008 -0700 @@ -373,13 +373,10 @@ learn to use the other. Both tools are portable to all popular operating systems. -Subversion lacks a history-aware merge capability, forcing its users -to manually track exactly which revisions have been merged between -branches. If users fail to do this, or make mistakes, they face the -prospect of manually resolving merges with unnecessary conflicts. -Subversion also fails to merge changes when files or directories are -renamed. Subversion's poor merge support is its single biggest -weakness. +Prior to version 1.5, Subversion had no useful support for merges. +At the time of writing, its merge tracking capability is new, and known to be +\href{http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.branchmerge.advanced.html#svn.branchmerge.advanced.finalword}{complicated + and buggy}. Mercurial has a substantial performance advantage over Subversion on every revision control operation I have benchmarked. I have measured