Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?

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
> neglected:
>
> http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/DVCSAnalysis

That analysis completely ignores the (most?) important factors,
mindshare and marketplace.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com