Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?

Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-20 04:51:26

on Tue Mar 20 2012, Thomas Heller <thom.heller-AT-googlemail.com> wrote:

> 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).

That's just one of many reasons.  If you mentally amplify the difference
in popularity between Mercurial and Git, I'm sure some of the others
will become more apparent to you.  It's all a matter of degrees.

> 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. 

Careful; I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but that term is quite
inflammatory---to some people it means a lot more (and much worse) than
to others.  And besides, I totally disagree with you.  Personal
anecdotes of frustration with a tool are not FUD, no matter how you
interpret the term.  Arguments that it is easier to make a transition to
a tool with similar commands (e.g. SVN->Hg) are not FUD.  Human factors
count---a lot.  That's part of the reason the popularity measuremnet is
important to me.

> And this marketshare argument, completely disregarding a possible
> other option ... wow. 

I'm not completely disregarding it.  I've done enough evaluation to
satisfy myself of the answer.

> Maybe you did the comparison once. 

Yes.

> 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.

I'm not on a Git crusade.  And I'm sorry that I can't help you further
to find a killer argument for yourself; in the end, everyone makes his
own choice of favorite.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com