Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?

Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Martin Geisler (mg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-22 18:37:23

Mathias Gaunard <mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden]> writes:

> On 20/03/12 14:06, Sergiu Dotenco wrote:
>
>> Everything you described works in Mercurial as well, probably much
>> better.
>
> It is a relatively new Mercurial feature, was originally an
> experimental extension, and was added for parity with Git.

I think you're misunderstanding the concept of extensions in Mercurial.
Mercurial never ships "experimental" extensions -- we ship optional and
potentially dangerous functionality in extensions.

We have a safe core set of commands and delegate functionality to
extensions when it's either not something everybody would need (like
integration with bugzilla) or when it's potentially dangerous (history
rewriting is dangerous if you mess around with published history).

All extensions are fully supported and covered by the same quality
standards we use for the core code.

> I'd rather choose the software that was designed for the good ideas
> than the one that copied them.

That's silly -- Mercurial learned from Git. I think that's a good thing
and not something to sneeze at. Both Git and Mercurial was heavily
influenced by Monotone, so I guess you should really be using that?

We've had some good ideas of our own in Mercurial: Git borrowed the
bundle command from Mercurial. The revset and fileset languages are
unique to Mercurial and I think they're quite innovative.

-- 
Martin Geisler
Mercurial links: http://mercurial.ch/