Just wanted to share my recent experiences with trying to use a DVCS for wx. I was interested in this because I often need to test some change on multiple platforms before committing it and currently what I do is to do the modification in a svn checkout on one machine, test it there, then make a patch, apply it to svn checkout on another one, test there, then commit from the first one, undo the patch on the other one and update from there -- this is not really complicated but certainly involves many more steps than I'd like. And this is the simple case when the patch actually works, if it doesn't and if you need to make changes to it, it's too easy to get entangled in multiple copies of the patch and get lost.
On the other hand, I'm using since some time Mercurial (also known as hg) for my own projects and enjoy its simplicity and how easy it is to create a separate clone of the repository for the changes. It's also so much faster than svn for a lot of common operations such as viewing the file history, annotating it or finding a given log message (which it can do by keyword, unlike svn). So I decided to try using hgsubversion, a bi-directional Mercurial-SVN gateway, for wx.
Unfortunately it didn't go great. Importing wx tree took a long time (~30 hours) and ran out of memory a few times as reported here, resulting in the process being killed by Linux out of memory killer (one of few times I've been actually glad to have it happen as a process consuming 8GB of memory without any good reason does deserve to be killed). Of course, this is a one-time only operation and so it doesn't matter much but, still, it was hardly a great start. More importantly, though, working with this setup turned out to be inconvenient in practice because cloning the entire wx tree does take time, even with hg efficiency, especially to a different machine. It can hardly be otherwise considering that the full cloned tree is 1.7GB -- it's not that much in absolute as svn checkout of the trunk (only) is 330MB, while hg tree contains all project versions and not just the latest one, but it's still a lot and, as we'll see below, it can be much better.
An alternative could have been to use Mercurial named branches but they are not meant for the private changes, i.e. using them would leave traces in svn history which is really not ideal (these branches are for my own personal testing and I do not want the others to see how many mistakes I made while doing a trivial change!). Or there is Mq extension which is supposed to be one of the greatest things about Mercurial but unfortunately I could never get used to it and it just doesn't seem right to me to use what is basically an orthogonal VCS on top of the one which is normally used. And the patch queue is local to each repository so with it I'd basically be reduced to copying patches around again. Maybe the most promising extension is the pbranch one, it really does seem to allow to do what I need. But it's non-standard, I'm unsure about its further prospects and it seems rather complicated thus negating the main advantage of hg -- its simplicity.
So, with a heavy heart, I turned to another popular DVCS: Git. I think it could be described as Mercurial evil cousin. While Mercurial is as easy to use as it could be and has great documentation, Git is almost perversely complicated. It has concepts which are particular to it only (can anyone really explain what purpose does the index existence serve except for confusing new users and occasionally tripping more experienced ones?). Its included documentation is only useful if you already know very well what you are doing. It allows (I think it encourages, really) you to make errors -- which is, of course, fine, as there are 3 or 4 different ways to undo them. Of which 2 (different ones, depending on situation) make things even worse. It seems to enjoy reusing commands commonly used in other VCS to do something different. Even the commands which seem to do what you'd expect (e.g. pull and push) do not. Moreover, they are not really even opposites of each other. So you never know what a command with a simple name does and you never risk finding any other commands without reading half a dozen of git tutorials. And even then you have to remember that the equivalent of hg histedit is git rebase -i (with rebase in general doing something completely different, of course). And using git means having one extra letter to type for every command compared to hg!
So ever since I found Mercurial I never seriously considered using Git. While I agree that Git is more powerful, having 37 different ways to shoot oneself in the foot is not really what I'm looking for in my VCS. Unfortunately, Git does have one killer feature: local branches. This is exactly what I need when working with wx svn and is close to what Mercurial pbranch extension does. Except, in this particular case only, Git is actually simpler. And faster.
Speaking about faster: importing wx svn using git-svn took "only" 12 hours. And never consumed any appreciable amount of RAM. And, a really pleasant surprise, the git repository of wx is only 400MB -- that is hardly bigger then svn checkout of a single trunk revision (while git repository, like the hg one, contains all versions of all branches in the project) and more than 4 times smaller than hg. In spite of myself, I was impressed. Think about it: this means that if you have both 2.8 and trunk checkout of wx you actually save 200MB of disk space by using Git -- while gaining all the advantages of having the entire project history locally (which is the reason for which switching between 2 branches in git is practical but using svn switch is not). And if, like me, you have 4 branches checked out (2.8, 2.9.0 (well, hopefully not for much longer, this one), SOC2009_FSWATCHER and trunk), the space savings becomes really noticeable (almost 1GB).
But it gets better: "cloning" (creating a new local branch) with git is instantaneous. Switching to another existing branch (e.g. 2.8 one) is much faster than with hg. Even updating from svn seems to be faster, although here the difference is not really significant (using the usual hg pull instead of git svn rebase is significant advantage of Mercurial though -- but unfortunately it's easier to get used for idiosyncratic syntax (yeah, and committing is done with git svn dcommit -- I'm sure there is a logical explanation for this extra "d", too...) than to slowness).
So I'm using git as my svn client for now (all of 2 days). And I'm ashamed to say I love it. Of course, hg is great compared to svn too. But I can't realistically use it with svn right now and I can do it with git. And so I don't have to jungle with patches any more. And the coloured output of git diff is so much easier to read than svn diff (and even than hg diff with colour on, as git also nicely highlights white space errors). Now if only I didn't forget to use that --cached option half of the times...
To summarize, I wholeheartedly recommend using Git as a client for wx svn repository. If there is any interest in it, I could push my repository to Github (it's bigger than their 300MB limit for free plan but I hope they could make an exception). But even if you need to run git-svn yourself, it's still great to have a local git repository if you plan on submitting (or even just having them privately) patches to wxWidgets. Of course, any DVCS could be used to have this extra freedom of working with wx in any way you want. But while I still hope hg implements local branches in the future and hgsubversion improves (there doesn't seem to be much point in hoping that git interface becomes logical), for now Git is the best choice of a DVCS to use with wxWidgets.