Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?

Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Bruno Santos (bsantos_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-20 07:01:34

On 20/03/2012, at 07:47, Sergiu Dotenco wrote:

> On 3/20/2012 2:41 AM, Bruno Santos wrote:
>> 
>> On 19/03/2012, at 22:49, Eric Niebler wrote:
>> 
>>> On 3/19/2012 7:02 AM, Daryle Walker wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Git has a competitor called Mercurial?  If we're moving to a Distributed-VCS, should we go to Mercurial instead of Git?  They're kind-of like CVS vs. Subversion, except I think they came up in parallel.  (While Subversion was designed as an updated CVS.)  I think Git was made up of a bunch of script hacks, while Mercurial was a regimented single program.
>>>> I don't have a preference, but I want to make sure we consider the rival options.
>>>> Daryle W.
>>> 
>>> As with everything in open source, it comes down to: who is willing and
>>> able to do the work? If nobody advocates for Mercurial *and* is willing
>>> to do the work to make it happen, then it won't happen.
>>> 
>>> FWIW, I sympathize with the folks complaining about git's complicated
>>> interface/mental model and with its poor Windows support. I've never
>>> used Mercurial. If it's simpler to use and has solid windows support,
>>> those are two strong argument in its favor. But again, someone needs to
>>> step up to the plate, and AFAICT nobody has.
>> 
>> I don't think mercurial is simpler to use. It just makes it harder to edit history, which is only advantageous for someone completely clueless about it.
> 
> You think? How about sticking to the facts? Moreover, why would you even
> want to edit already shared history? Seems like there are much more
> clueless Git users who are not able to handle the tool in the first place.

I wasn't referring to mercurial, I was referring to the history. So you're are well aware of how history works you don't mess up things like Anthony exemplified.
I don't what to edit shared history, I want to edit what's not shared or even deleted it.

The fact is mercurial resembles to much of svn. I didn't appreciate svn, I always regard it a very poor thing and I hated it when working with teams.
When git come out finally had something that was really nice: branching and merging become useful and amazing.
The branching model in mercurial is very poor, the multiple heads concept is just stupid. I like to treat branches as individual entities.
And worst part is mercurial forces you and doesn't give any other choice. Why would I want to use a tool that forces me to such idiocracies?
And it becomes really frustrating was you become a more advance user. The mercurial mentality reminds of the same mentality of managed languages.