Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Anthony Williams (anthony.ajw_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-20 04:24:30
On 20/03/12 02:04, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> on Mon Mar 19 2012, Anthony Williams<anthony.ajw-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've had numerous problems with git, including getting my local git
>> repo into a state where it would neither push to nor pull from the
>> remote repo. On the other hand, I've had no problems with Mercurial,
>> even though I've used it on more projects, with more branching and
>> In one case, I was having such difficulty with git that I used hg-git
>> to import my git repo into mercurial, so I could deal with the
>> branches and merges in a sane fashion, then exported back to git.
>> All my problems basically boil down to one thing though: the user
>> interface (command line) to git doesn't map cleanly to the way I think
>> about stuff, or the operations I wish to do, whereas the user
>> interface for mercurial does. For me, mercurial is intuitive, whereas
>> git is not, in a big way.
> But for every story like that, there's an opposite one from the other
> community. For example, I find Mercurial's branch model completely
> insane. Multiple heads on a branch? What on earth were they thinking?!
> So on one project I used git-Hg to make the transition in the other
Totally agreed. I was just sharing my experience. I find git
unintuitive. YMMV, and apparently it does. I actually find the "multiple
heads" thing quite intuitive!
Anyway, as I said in the paragraph you skipped: git is better than
subversion, so I'd rather use git than not change to a DVCS.
-- Author of C++ Concurrency in Action http://www.stdthread.co.uk/book/ just::thread C++11 thread library http://www.stdthread.co.uk Just Software Solutions Ltd http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL, UK. Company No. 5478976
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk