MacHg / Murky / TortoiseHg - what to use?

Question

I started using Mercurial and chose MacHg as my GUI of choice, simply because it was the first thing I found when I googled the Mercurial Mac GUI . However, I recently discovered Murky and TortoiseHg has recently been updated for Mac. Are there any significant reasons why I should choose one of them, or is this a solution, just which application interface do I like best?

Answer 1

This question is kind of subjective, but I found SourceTree to be a good solution for visualizing your working copy. However, for the most part, I just use the terminal to commit / push / pull / update.

Answer 2

I am the author of MacHg, so of course I'm biased. Re Murky, it has not been updated, and it will crash with large-scale repositories when viewing the story. He needs to parse the entire history graph to lay it out (he uses the top level of "hg log"). Using a neat trick, MacHg does it gradually, so if you have 200,000 commits, MacHg doesn't have to read them to figure out how to display them, it can go directly to the place you are viewing. TortiseHg also suffers from having to read and analyze the whole story, although it can do it much faster than Murky (since TortiseHg uses faster lower level calls to retrieve data) (as others tell me).

SourceTree seems like an approved solution. It is currently supported commercially by Atlassian, who make Bitbucket, and they are a great group of guys. However, in my last test of SourceTree (1.4.3.1), it is apparently limited to the same problems. For example, one test case that I use is the OpenOffice mercury repository, which is some 3Gigs with 260,000 revisions. The attempt to view the graph for version 150,000 is really very slow in these other programs. I exit SourceTree after 5 minutes of waiting.

In addition, MacHg has nicer history and recovery tools, if I say so. SourceTree right now has better integration with some of the external services such as Bitbucket and GitHub, although it’s not at all difficult to add repositories to MacHg (just drag and drop or open or paste a line, etc.). Neither MacHg nor SourceTree (AFAIK) support phases, but I plan to add them very soon, since I am sure that SourceTree will also be. TortiseHg supports phases that I think right now.

And well, I like the look and feel of MacHg, of course :)

You cannot go wrong with MacHg or TortiseHg or SourceTree unless you have large repositories, in which case I would choose MacHg.

Cheers, Jason

Answer 3

MacHg has at least a direct installation, and Mercurial is integrated internally, what I'm losing is information, and there is also a command line interface, only the documentation is not good enough.

I was in mac-mercurial / python / keyring setting up the hellish circle, I'm just new to setting up a repository for excerpts without asking for a password (where pass is encrypted) from sh script for my build server. MacHg can be an exit, because everything is already integrated into the instalation package, with the exception of mhg and chg aliases for a regular (without MacHG) terminal.

I will also skip some information about the repository cloning progress, because I clone a 500 MB repository from the bitpack via https, it usually takes me 2 hours. I need to debug if the problem is on mercurial, ISP (this should be done after 2 minutes regarding the connection speed) or bitpack side.