Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Martin Geisler (mg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-21 04:42:28
Beren Minor <beren.minor+boost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Sergiu Dotenco
> <sergiu.dotenco_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 20.03.2012 10:56, Beren Minor wrote:
>> The interpretation of Google hits as a popularity measure is very bold.
>> The results you're mentioning can also suggest that Git users are more
>> likely to require additional support. In previous comments, which you
>> haven't read, it has been pointed out that the perceivable market share
>> does not correlate with how well a tool integrates with a system. This
>> is especially true when comparing Git and Mercurial.
> Let's compare open-source projects on Ohloh then instead of Google if
> you like it more http://www.ohloh.net/repositories/compare, but's it's
> not what I wanted to point out. As I said, I won't be able to provide
> any argument convincing everyone anyway.
Ohloh is a particularly bad statistic to use: I think they've crawled
GitHub and not Bitbucket and Launchpad (there are many more Bazaar
projects than the ones Ohloh list, and there are more Mercurial projects
than Bazaar projects).
-- Martin Geisler aragost Trifork -- Professional Mercurial support http://www.aragost.com/mercurial/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk