Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-19 13:17:38
on Mon Mar 19 2012, Sergiu Dotenco <sergiu.dotenco-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19.03.2012 15:02, Daryle Walker wrote:
>> Git has a competitor called Mercurial? If we're moving to a
>> Distributed-VCS, should we go to Mercurial instead of Git? They're
>> kind-of like CVS vs. Subversion, except I think they came up in
>> parallel. (While Subversion was designed as an updated CVS.) I
>> think Git was made up of a bunch of script hacks, while Mercurial
>> was a regimented single program.
>> I don't have a preference, but I want to make sure we consider the rival options.
>> Daryle W.
> While we're at it, Google's analysis of Git and Mercurial shouldn't be
That analysis completely ignores the (most?) important factors,
mindshare and marketplace.
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk