Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?

Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-20 06:26:17

on Tue Mar 20 2012, Beren Minor <beren.minor+boost-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

That's right.  As Eric wrote, it comes down (at least in part) to who's
willing to do the work.  So far, those people chose Git.

> 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).

Also right.  Of course, as I'm sure you'll acknowledge, different things
matter to other people.

> 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.

Spot-on again.

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