Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?

Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Mark Borgerding (mark_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-19 14:52:40

re mindshare:
I don't understand. Mercurial chose to adopt cvs/svn commands and 
nomenclature when it made sense.  Git chose to reinvent everything.  
Migrating developers from svn to mercurial should be much easier.

re marketplace:
Google trends shows. "git" outpaces "mercurial" by roughly 2:1.  
Although I'd guess that number is somewhat skewed by people using 
"git-r-done" in their blogs than "mercurial"
Does it matter which is more popular?  As long as the choice is popular 
*enough* that it won't vanish.

On 03/19/2012 01:17 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> 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.
>