Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-19 16:36:33
on Mon Mar 19 2012, Bryce Lelbach <blelbach-AT-cct.lsu.edu> 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?
Data? All you have to do is read the article to see that it ignores
> The two major surveys I know contradict this.
> http://www.eclipse.org/org/community_survey/Eclipse_Survey_2011_Report.pdf, page 16
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk