Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Sergiu Dotenco (sergiu.dotenco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-19 15:15:09
On 3/19/2012 7:46 PM, Bruno Santos wrote:
> On 19/03/2012, at 18:24, Sergiu Dotenco wrote:
>> On 3/19/2012 6:15 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>>> on Mon Mar 19 2012, Daryle Walker <darylew-AT-hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Git has a competitor called Mercurial? If we're moving to a
>>>> Distributed-VCS, should we go to Mercurial instead of Git?
>>> IMO, no. There are several reasons, but the main one is that Git is
>>> winning in the marketplace.
>> What reasons exactly? "Git is the most powerful versioning system
>> today", "is increasingly popular", "Git has built-in support for more
>> advanced features", "is more popular in the open-source world", "Git is
>> winning in the marketplace"? Sounds more like a propaganda, which isn't
>> even convincing.
> The community around git completely overshadows any other DCVS. This is not propaganda but a fact.
> Popularity is the winning decision factor. Can you convince us why not?
The alleged fact is probably a fact only iff you mean the Linux (kernel)
community. Besides, why is the popularity important considering that
both version control systems are comparable?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk