Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Christopher Jefferson (chris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-20 07:11:09
On 20 Mar 2012, at 11:03, Julian Gonggrijp wrote:
I feel two points from this email are the most important ones:
> - Within the existing Boost community, git seems to be more popular
> than mercurial. I've seen several library proposals pass by that
> were versioned with git. I'm also sure that at least one existing
> Boost library is being maintained in a GitHub repository. AFAICT
> mercurial scores a solid zero on both of those.
> - A lot of work has already been done in order to transition Boost
> from svn to git. From what I read in the "neglected aspects"
> thread, John Wiegley's subconvert tool seems to be almost ready and
> that also seems to be the last (only?) thing we need in order to
> switch. For mercurial no work has been done yet.
At the end of the day, no-one is paid to work on boost, and the people who are willing to put the work in all want to use git. Unless mercurial fans are willing to put serious work into building the infrastructure required for boost, then the idea is a non-starter.
Having used both git and mercurial extensively, I believe the differences in practice to boost of which was chosen would be minimal. They both accomplish broadly the same goals in broadly the same way.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk