Boost logo

Boost :

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

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at