Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?

Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Hartmut Kaiser (hartmut.kaiser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-19 16:58:55

> 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 those
> factors.
> 
> > The two major surveys I know contradict this.
> >
> > http://www.eclipse.org/org/community_survey/Eclipse_Survey_2011_Report
> > .pdf, page 16
> > http://blogs.forrester.com/application_development/2010/01/forrester-d
> > atabyte-developer-scm-tool-adoption-and-use.html
> 
> Contradict what?

Well, it contradicts your claim that 'Git is winning in the marketplace',
which is total nonsense if you look at the surveys (SVN 50% vs. GIT 13%
'marketshare').

Regards Hartmut
---------------
http://boost-spirit.com
http://stellar.cct.lsu.edu