Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Bruno Santos (bsantos_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-19 21:41:20
On 19/03/2012, at 22:49, Eric Niebler wrote:
> On 3/19/2012 7:02 AM, 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.) I think Git was made up of a bunch of script hacks, while Mercurial was a regimented single program.
>> I don't have a preference, but I want to make sure we consider the rival options.
>> Daryle W.
>
> As with everything in open source, it comes down to: who is willing and
> able to do the work? If nobody advocates for Mercurial *and* is willing
> to do the work to make it happen, then it won't happen.
>
> FWIW, I sympathize with the folks complaining about git's complicated
> interface/mental model and with its poor Windows support. I've never
> used Mercurial. If it's simpler to use and has solid windows support,
> those are two strong argument in its favor. But again, someone needs to
> step up to the plate, and AFAICT nobody has.
I don't think mercurial is simpler to use. It just makes it harder to edit history, which is only advantageous for someone completely clueless about it.