Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Bryce Lelbach (blelbach_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-19 15:54:16
On 2012.03.19 13.17, 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.
Uh, can you provide some data for this, please?
The two major surveys I know contradict this.
http://www.eclipse.org/org/community_survey/Eclipse_Survey_2011_Report.pdf, page 16
-- Bryce Lelbach aka wash STE||AR Group, Center for Computation and Science, LSU -- boost-spirit.com stellar.cct.lsu.edu llvm.wiki.kernel.org
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk