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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk