Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Mark Borgerding (mark_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-19 14:52:40
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.
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
> That analysis completely ignores the (most?) important factors,
> mindshare and marketplace.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk