2

I am deciding between setting up a Mercurial or Git server (via HTTPS) on Windows Server 2008. I have heard that Git support is sketchy for Windows client use, but haven't heard much (that are up to date) about setting up a central repository on Windows. I have heard Git support has improved a lot over the last year or two. I prefer Git personally, but not at the cost of poor Windows support. What advice do you have?

Martin Geisler
  • 1,271
  • 9
  • 23

4 Answers4

3

"I have heard git support has improved a lot over the last year or two. I prefer git personally, but not at the cost of poor Windows support."

Given this quote from the OP, I would suggest it mostly comes down to how attached you are to graphic interfaces. Windows developers who use Git tend towards entering commands though the command line interface.

Those windows developers who spend most their development time inside Visual Studio and who prefer working with GUI interfaces often prefer Mercurial.

This is more tendencies then hard and fast rules, there are some GUIs for Git and some Mercurial users prefer using the command line interface.

user179700
  • 133
  • 4
0

The server part of git work fine on windows without any quirks. The support is much better than that in the client.

Try this link on stackoverflow: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1482824/setup-a-git-server-with-msysgit-on-windows

Community
  • 1
J-16 SDiZ
  • 238
  • 2
  • 9
0

git and mercurial are about equal for support concerning the server component. make your decision based upon how much you are going to use the current generation of management client on the server.

there is no bias toward either at the moment.

Greg Buehler
  • 1,030
  • 2
  • 10
  • 14
0

Consider that for the client side you can use GitExtension a plugin for Visual Studio that let developers to manage Git entirely from GUI, so i think that if you prefer GIT, you should install GIT ;)

aleroot
  • 3,180
  • 6
  • 29
  • 37