I work for a company which uses hg exclusively. I think it's a great version control system, but it suffers from an annoying implementation problem which gets in the way of our workflow.
When an hg pull is performed the pulling repository must let the other repo know about the state of each of it's branches. This includes closed branches.
In addition, hg uses HTTP as it's network protocol. I think it transmits it's branch info as part of the headers in a GET request. The result is that once you have a certain number of branches in your repo the pulls fail because there isn't enough room in the headers to transmit the state of the repo.
We are heavy users of branches for features/bugfixes as this helps us to improve quality control. This hg shortfall means we have to rethink our souce control procedures, we only learned about this problem when we encountered it - several thousand changesets into using hg. Apparently a fix is several months away from being in an hg release.
hg is great, but the above problem + the mutable changesets offered by git now has me leaning more towards the git camp.
Why would you want to use flashdrives to transport files when you can just use the campus networks? We used DC++ when I was at uni and that worked nicely.
Same here story here too... after hearing multiple friends busted for torrenting, I setting up a DC++ server under my dorm desk and the rest is history. With some help with friends in each dorm area on campus, we mapped out the IP address blocks for the residential network and white-listed all traffic to the server to prevent the heat that the UCLA DC++ servers were experiencing (circa 2003-2004).
The topper however is how almost 6 years later I was referred to and hired by a bio tech start up based on the fact that the CEO remembered me as the DC++ admin during his days in the dorms.
Kids these days... I remember when DirectConnect was a crappy VB program that crashed continuously, and DC++ was just getting started as a replacement (they didn't even have a server at the time, only a client).
We did the same, but used iTunes shares. My machine ran a really fantastic service called mt-daapd, which would periodically scan a folder, then offer everything up on iTunes (I should clarify. iTunes was used as a client to listen to the music, mt-daapd ran on a linux box under my desk).
There was a software called "ourtunes" that would let you download things from these shares. It was amazing. People would name their libraries things like "room 204"...it had a great community feel to it :).
A part of me faded away when Apple updated iTunes in 2006 and effectively blocked MyTunes/OurTunes [1]. What a great facilitator it was for introducing you to cool people with a variety of musical tastes.
Kudos for taking the effort to do it. Nevertheless I'd still prefer the network for transport. As long as you are allowed an encrypted connection with your buddy's machine there is no reason to resort to flashdrives.
When an hg pull is performed the pulling repository must let the other repo know about the state of each of it's branches. This includes closed branches.
In addition, hg uses HTTP as it's network protocol. I think it transmits it's branch info as part of the headers in a GET request. The result is that once you have a certain number of branches in your repo the pulls fail because there isn't enough room in the headers to transmit the state of the repo.
We are heavy users of branches for features/bugfixes as this helps us to improve quality control. This hg shortfall means we have to rethink our souce control procedures, we only learned about this problem when we encountered it - several thousand changesets into using hg. Apparently a fix is several months away from being in an hg release.
hg is great, but the above problem + the mutable changesets offered by git now has me leaning more towards the git camp.