<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Distributed version control systems</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.macrobug.com/blog/2008/10/31/distributed-version-control-systems/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.macrobug.com/blog/2008/10/31/distributed-version-control-systems/</link>
	<description>Macrobug Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 21:22:49 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: www.macrobug.com&#187; Blog Archive &#187; Git versus Mercurial</title>
		<link>http://www.macrobug.com/blog/2008/10/31/distributed-version-control-systems/comment-page-1/#comment-75749</link>
		<dc:creator>www.macrobug.com&#187; Blog Archive &#187; Git versus Mercurial</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:42:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.macrobug.com/blog/2008/10/31/distributed-version-control-systems/#comment-75749</guid>
		<description>[...] A few months ago I adopted Mercurial for a project on which I was working. At that time I was faced with a choice between Mercurial or Git, and Mercurial seemed the right choice because it behaved similarly to Subversion, with which nearly everyone is familiar. Git, however, seemed to be developed by-hackers-for-hackers. Although this often yields the best feature set it does, in my view, tend to lead to confusion (and occasionally architectural omissions). [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] A few months ago I adopted Mercurial for a project on which I was working. At that time I was faced with a choice between Mercurial or Git, and Mercurial seemed the right choice because it behaved similarly to Subversion, with which nearly everyone is familiar. Git, however, seemed to be developed by-hackers-for-hackers. Although this often yields the best feature set it does, in my view, tend to lead to confusion (and occasionally architectural omissions). [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

