Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Bruno Santos (bsantos_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-19 21:10:05
On 19/03/2012, at 19:15, Sergiu Dotenco wrote:
> On 3/19/2012 7:46 PM, Bruno Santos wrote:
>> On 19/03/2012, at 18:24, Sergiu Dotenco wrote:
>>> On 3/19/2012 6:15 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>>>> on Mon Mar 19 2012, Daryle Walker <darylew-AT-hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Git has a competitor called Mercurial? If we're moving to a
>>>>> Distributed-VCS, should we go to Mercurial instead of Git?
>>>> IMO, no. There are several reasons, but the main one is that Git is
>>>> winning in the marketplace.
>>> What reasons exactly? "Git is the most powerful versioning system
>>> today", "is increasingly popular", "Git has built-in support for more
>>> advanced features", "is more popular in the open-source world", "Git is
>>> winning in the marketplace"? Sounds more like a propaganda, which isn't
>>> even convincing.
>> The community around git completely overshadows any other DCVS. This is not propaganda but a fact.
>> Popularity is the winning decision factor. Can you convince us why not?
> The alleged fact is probably a fact only iff you mean the Linux (kernel)
> community. Besides, why is the popularity important considering that
> both version control systems are comparable?
Only the Linux community? are you serious?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk