Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Bryce Lelbach (blelbach_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-19 15:56:22
Page 12, rather.
On 2012.03.19 14.54, Bryce Lelbach wrote:
> 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
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-- 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