Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Sergiu Dotenco (sergiu.dotenco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-20 06:33:33
On 20.03.2012 10:56, Beren Minor wrote:
> 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).
The interpretation of Google hits as a popularity measure is very bold.
The results you're mentioning can also suggest that Git users are more
likely to require additional support. In previous comments, which you
haven't read, it has been pointed out that the perceivable market share
does not correlate with how well a tool integrates with a system. This
is especially true when comparing Git and Mercurial.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk