Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Sergiu Dotenco (sergiu.dotenco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-20 03:47:56
On 3/20/2012 2:41 AM, Bruno Santos wrote:
> On 19/03/2012, at 22:49, Eric Niebler wrote:
>> 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.
> I don't think mercurial is simpler to use. It just makes it harder to edit history, which is only advantageous for someone completely clueless about it.
You think? How about sticking to the facts? Moreover, why would you even
want to edit already shared history? Seems like there are much more
clueless Git users who are not able to handle the tool in the first place.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk