Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?

Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Thomas Heller (thom.heller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-20 03:13:00

On 03/20/2012 02:52 AM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>
> on Mon Mar 19 2012, "Hartmut Kaiser"<hartmut.kaiser-AT-gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>>> on Mon Mar 19 2012, Bryce Lelbach<blelbach-AT-cct.lsu.edu>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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').
>
> If you read the thread carefully, you'll see I was talking about the
> DVCS marketplace (in fact, just about Git vs Mercurial), where SVN is
> not a contender.  Please tone down the 'tude, friend.

Let me try to wrap my head around all this...
So essentially, the argument is to choose git over whatever is because 
of its marketshare, right?

The only reason behind this i can think of is to attract new boost 
contributors (yeah ... I know, I am one of those hippies completely 
neglecting the commercial interest behind boost).
Ok, I can see that as a possible advantage for git. Especially since a 
lot of people expressed themselves that svn is _the_ major blocker for 
not contributing.
So far so good, this is the argument for people already familiar with 
git. Let's check the statistics again:
https://github.com/languages
Right ... so many potential new developers ... Maybe we should provide 
Javascript bindings ...

So, what about persons who are infected by their favorite poison and 
have to learn the VCS tool of choice. I keep reading about git having a 
steep learning curve, so maybe we won't attract those developers either ...

I'd argue that writing code is not done in the VCS. Be it writing a 
patch for an existing software or a completely new library. The 
complexity is in writing the code itself. Or applying the patch and 
verify it.

FWIW, I am the last person who will oppose such a change.
But currently, noone presented a fair reasoning in favor for git, or how 
such a transition could be done. No one. The only things that have been 
discussed on this list is FUD from both sides. And this marketshare 
argument, completely disregarding a possible other option ... wow. Maybe 
you did the comparison once. Somehow people tend to forget in their Git 
crusade that other people didn't go through the transition yet, and are 
searching for arguments to actually make such a change.

Regards,
Thomas