Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Sergiu Dotenco (sergiu.dotenco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-19 15:15:09
On 3/19/2012 7:46 PM, Bruno Santos wrote:
>
> On 19/03/2012, at 18:24, Sergiu Dotenco wrote:
>
>> On 3/19/2012 6:15 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>>>
>>> on Mon Mar 19 2012, Daryle Walker <darylew-AT-hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Git has a competitor called Mercurial? If we're moving to a
>>>> Distributed-VCS, should we go to Mercurial instead of Git?
>>>
>>> IMO, no. There are several reasons, but the main one is that Git is
>>> winning in the marketplace.
>>>
>>
>> What reasons exactly? "Git is the most powerful versioning system
>> today", "is increasingly popular", "Git has built-in support for more
>> advanced features", "is more popular in the open-source world", "Git is
>> winning in the marketplace"? Sounds more like a propaganda, which isn't
>> even convincing.
>
> The community around git completely overshadows any other DCVS. This is not propaganda but a fact.
> Popularity is the winning decision factor. Can you convince us why not?
The alleged fact is probably a fact only iff you mean the Linux (kernel)
community. Besides, why is the popularity important considering that
both version control systems are comparable?