Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-19 18:49:12
On 3/19/2012 7:02 AM, 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.
As with everything in open source, it comes down to: who is willing and
able to do the work? If nobody advocates for Mercurial *and* is willing
to do the work to make it happen, then it won't happen.
FWIW, I sympathize with the folks complaining about git's complicated
interface/mental model and with its poor Windows support. I've never
used Mercurial. If it's simpler to use and has solid windows support,
those are two strong argument in its favor. But again, someone needs to
step up to the plate, and AFAICT nobody has.
-- Eric Niebler 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