Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Neal Becker (ndbecker2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-20 07:33:04
Mathias Gaunard wrote:
> On 19/03/12 15:02, 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.)
> It's not at all like CVS vs Subversion, in part for the reason you
>> I think Git was made up of a bunch of script hacks, while Mercurial was a
>> regimented single program.
> That is incorrect.
> It's simply following the UNIX philosophy.
>> I don't have a preference, but I want to make sure we consider the rival
> How about we stop wasting time discussing this?
> It has been way too long already.
> Git is the most powerful versioning system today, is increasingly
> popular, and has a vibrant community around it.
> While Mercurial is comparable, Git has built-in support for more
> advanced features and is more popular in the open-source world.
This is unsupportable nonsense. Neither is more powerful. They are both quite
comparable. If you believe one is more 'powerful', whatever that means, I
suspect you are not looking at current information. For example, it's been
quite some time since hg supported rebase.