Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?

Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Beren Minor (beren.minor+boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-20 05:56:30

I must admit I haven't read every comment on this topic but I think
that the initial question is just another dead-end question, like VI
vs Emacs.

The scope is reduced here to Mercurial vs Git, but why? There are so
many more alternatives to these two tools, Bazaar, Veracity, Monotone,
Fossil... Why not considering and arguing on these tools as well?

The answer is very simple: nobody will never be able to make up an
objective argumentation in favor of one of these tools (or at least an
argumentation that everybody agree on). There will always be some
people preferring one against the other, and giving very valid points
in favor of it.

I think this is just a choice that has to be done, and that can't be
done in an objective way. In my opinion, the only thing that matters
here, is not how hard it is to use the tool, because none of them are
hard to use (seriously, it's just a matter of getting used to it) and
because this will depend on individuals and how hard people try to
understand how the tool works and what previous tools they were used
to (coming from svn or from p4, etc...). The only thing that really
matters is how easy it is for developers (old or potentially new to
Boost) to find information, help or training about the tool, and how
easy it integrates with any system. This is what tool popularity and
marketshare reflects (2.300k results for "Git Version Control" vs 600k
for "Mercurial Version Control" on Google).

Regarding new developers, I would give my point of view as being part
of this category: I'm not a Boost contributor, but I like to checkout
open-source projects sources, and to build them from scratch. Having
Boost running mercurial would certainly be a pain, because I don't
have mercurial installed and I feel already tired of having to install
another software to fetch Boost sources. For all open-source projects
I'm following, none use mercurial, and more than half use Git,
therefore I've got Git installed and I know how to use it (and I've
got SVN for the other half). If Mercurial was more used/popular than
Git, then I would have it instead of Git, and I would have learned to
use it. It's not the case.

My 2¢.
-- 
Beren Minor