CODEWITHSUNDEEP
mercurialtortoisehgmurkymachg
nonopolarity
nonopolarity

Reputation: 150976

Which version of GUI Mercurial would be some of the best on a Mac and a PC?

It seems that on that page TortoiseHg is recommended most for a PC and MacHg is for the Mac. What are some experience of using them if somebody can share?

It seems that Murky for Mac need compilation and sometimes it needs a bit of work. I was also thinking of setting up a virtual machine running Win XP on top of a Mac to use TortoiseHg as well, although that will also need configuring SSH private key as well.

Upvotes: 1

Views: 760

Answers (3)

MdaG
MdaG

Reputation: 2730

I'm on a PC so TortoiseHg for me, but I really prefer MacHg's way of drawing the graphs.

Upvotes: 0

James Sumners
James Sumners

Reputation: 14777

I find that TortoiseHg makes most things really easy once you figure out the interface. For example, creating named branches with TortoiseHg is not obvious but easy to do once you figure it out.

I tried out Murky once, but it is cumbersome and limited.

I like MacHg. It makes doing merges easy since it automatically uses FileMerge on conflicts. However, I find that I need to keep an iTerm window open to do a lot of things with the base hg tool. Stuff like commits are a bit clunky in MacHg.

Upvotes: 3

Rudi
Rudi

Reputation: 19940

I use TortoiseHg with Windows and Linux.

Functions:

  • basic
    • commit
      • with hunk-selection
    • log
    • diff (also with external tools)
    • datamine
    • merge
    • serve
  • extensions
    • rebase on pull
    • shelve
    • patch queues

One drawback I got on windows is a performance problem when it tries to start external programs(like diff, but also some internal dialogs), but I don't know if this is a problem just here. Since it uses wxGtk2 as GUI library, I guess it will run on a mac too.

Upvotes: 1

Related Questions