Quantcast

[git] Mercurial?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
245 messages Options
1234 ... 13
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[git] Mercurial?

Daryle Walker

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.
     

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [git] Mercurial?

Bronek Kozicki-2
On 19/03/2012 14:02, 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.)  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.

Actually git was written from zero in C. Scripts only if you write them
on top of git, extremely efficient and steep learning curve, but
rewarding to use!

I'm using git daily together with p4 integration (for SOX compliant
history) and it's really great for team collaboration.


B.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [git] Mercurial?

Mathias Gaunard-2
In reply to this post by Daryle Walker
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
mentioned...


> 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 options.

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.

Most importantly, Git is already being used by several boost libraries.

Hasn't it been years since the idea of moving to Git has been submitted?
What's left to discuss?


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [git] Mercurial?

Sergiu Dotenco
In reply to this post by Daryle Walker
On 19.03.2012 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.)  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.

While we're at it, Google's analysis of Git and Mercurial shouldn't be
neglected:

http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/DVCSAnalysis

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [git] Mercurial?

Oliver Kowalke
In reply to this post by Mathias Gaunard-2
> What's left to discuss?

maybe, when does boost-trunk move to git?
--
Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir
belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [git] Mercurial?

Sergiu Dotenco
In reply to this post by Mathias Gaunard-2
On 19.03.2012 15:24, Mathias Gaunard wrote:
> Most importantly, Git is already being used by several boost libraries.

Not really, unless there are plans to use submodules/subrepositories.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [git] Mercurial?

Mark Borgerding
In reply to this post by Sergiu Dotenco
On 03/19/2012 10:48 AM, Sergiu Dotenco wrote:
> On 19.03.2012 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?
> While we're at it, Google's analysis of Git and Mercurial shouldn't be neglected:
> http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/DVCSAnalysis
>

FYI, here is a somewhat more entertaining, but still relevant,
comparison which frames git as MacGyver and mercurial as James Bond.
http://importantshock.wordpress.com/2008/08/07/git-vs-mercurial/

I'm sorry if I am fanning the flames of resurrecting an old discussion.  
I did a little searching to see if this question had a distinct decision
on the forums.  I saw discussions that were primarily focused on "why
DVCS?" not "which DVCS?"

It looks like the Boost wiki asks the question of "Why Git?"  (
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/Git/WhyGit )  but does not answer
it.  Perhaps the deciders can give more information on the wiki?  Then
when this comes up again, simply provide the link.


My anecdote: Take it for what it's worth ( maybe two cents) ...

I first encountered DVCS by helping out under the Eigen c++ library
project.  I quickly became a convert to the concept of dvcs and
secondarily to mercurial as an implementation.
I talked the rest of the developers at my company into migrating our
then-cvs repos forward to something more modern.  I did not want to
taint the decision by simply grabbing for what I knew. So we weighed out
the pros and cons of using various distributed version control systems.  
The fight quickly devolved to hg vs. git.

In the end we chose mercurial because
1. Hg did everything we could envision needing to do. Mostly through
simple prebuilt commands, infrequently by more advanced scripting see
"hg help templates" or "hg help revsets" to get a flavor of the power.
2. The commands and concepts of mercurial are closer to the cvs/svn
concepts we knew. Many of the commands are actually the same.  This
minimized the cost of converting our coders, which far outweighs the
cost of converting our code.
3. Hg is simpler than git for doing common tasks ( or at least seemed so
to us  -- see #2)

There were various other minor reasons that tipped us toward mercurial,
like cross-platform consistency and hg's habit of keeping the repo
compressed.


Let me end by applauding Boost for doing the right thing. Moving from
svn to any DVCS is a step in the right direction.  The detail of which
one is a nuance.



_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [git] Mercurial?

Dave Abrahams
In reply to this post by Daryle Walker

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.

--
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [git] Mercurial?

Dave Abrahams
In reply to this post by Sergiu Dotenco

on Mon Mar 19 2012, Sergiu Dotenco <sergiu.dotenco-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

> On 19.03.2012 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.)  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.
>
> While we're at it, Google's analysis of Git and Mercurial shouldn't be
> neglected:
>
> http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/DVCSAnalysis

That analysis completely ignores the (most?) important factors,
mindshare and marketplace.

--
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [git] Mercurial?

Sergiu Dotenco
In reply to this post by Dave Abrahams
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.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [git] Mercurial?

Bruno Santos-5

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?



_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

smime.p7s (6K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [git] Mercurial?

Mark Borgerding
In reply to this post by Dave Abrahams
re mindshare:
I don't understand. Mercurial chose to adopt cvs/svn commands and
nomenclature when it made sense.  Git chose to reinvent everything.  
Migrating developers from svn to mercurial should be much easier.

re marketplace:
Google trends shows. "git" outpaces "mercurial" by roughly 2:1.  
Although I'd guess that number is somewhat skewed by people using
"git-r-done" in their blogs than "mercurial"
Does it matter which is more popular?  As long as the choice is popular
*enough* that it won't vanish.



On 03/19/2012 01:17 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:

> on Mon Mar 19 2012, Sergiu Dotenco<sergiu.dotenco-AT-gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> On 19.03.2012 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.)  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.
>> While we're at it, Google's analysis of Git and Mercurial shouldn't be
>> neglected:
>>
>> http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/DVCSAnalysis
> That analysis completely ignores the (most?) important factors,
> mindshare and marketplace.
>


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [git] Mercurial?

Sergiu Dotenco
In reply to this post by Bruno Santos-5
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?

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [git] Mercurial?

Hartmut Kaiser
In reply to this post by Dave Abrahams

> 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.

You're kidding right? If not - let's switch Boost to Java - it's way more
popular!

Regards Hartmut
---------------
http://boost-spirit.com
http://stellar.cct.lsu.edu





_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Java bindings for boost (was RE: [git] Mercurial?)

Thomas Klimpel
Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
> Dave Abrahams wrote:
> > IMO, no.  There are several reasons, but the main one is that Git is
> > winning in the marketplace.
>
> You're kidding right? If not - let's switch Boost to Java - it's way
> more popular!

As a first step, boost could provide Java bindings similar to the existing python bindings. Anyone?

Regards,
Thomas

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [git] Mercurial?

Mathias Gaunard-2
In reply to this post by Hartmut Kaiser
On 19/03/12 20:31, Hartmut Kaiser 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.
>
> You're kidding right? If not - let's switch Boost to Java - it's way more
> popular!

Using Java makes sense if Java is a suitable tools to your purposes.
Clearly that's not the case of Boost.

When in comes to versioning systems, however, both mercurial and git are
suitable; I think choosing based on which is more popular is a good idea.

I certainly don't want Boost to end up using a tool that few people are
familiar with. Boost.Build is bad enough at that.


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [git] Mercurial?

Bryce Lelbach
In reply to this post by Dave Abrahams
On 2012.03.19 13.17, Dave Abrahams wrote:

>
> on Mon Mar 19 2012, Sergiu Dotenco <sergiu.dotenco-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 19.03.2012 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.)  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.
> >
> > While we're at it, Google's analysis of Git and Mercurial shouldn't be
> > neglected:
> >
> > http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/DVCSAnalysis
>
> That analysis completely ignores the (most?) important factors,
> mindshare and marketplace.
Uh, can you provide some data for this, please?

The two major surveys I know contradict this.

http://www.eclipse.org/org/community_survey/Eclipse_Survey_2011_Report.pdf, page 16
http://blogs.forrester.com/application_development/2010/01/forrester-databyte-developer-scm-tool-adoption-and-use.html

--
Bryce Lelbach aka wash
STE||AR Group, Center for Computation and Science, LSU
--
boost-spirit.com
stellar.cct.lsu.edu
llvm.wiki.kernel.org



_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

signature.asc (501 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [git] Mercurial?

Bryce Lelbach
Page 12, rather.

On 2012.03.19 14.54, Bryce Lelbach wrote:

> On 2012.03.19 13.17, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> >
> > on Mon Mar 19 2012, Sergiu Dotenco <sergiu.dotenco-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 19.03.2012 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.)  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.
> > >
> > > While we're at it, Google's analysis of Git and Mercurial shouldn't be
> > > neglected:
> > >
> > > http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/DVCSAnalysis
> >
> > That analysis completely ignores the (most?) important factors,
> > mindshare and marketplace.
>
> Uh, can you provide some data for this, please?
>
> The two major surveys I know contradict this.
>
> http://www.eclipse.org/org/community_survey/Eclipse_Survey_2011_Report.pdf, page 16
> http://blogs.forrester.com/application_development/2010/01/forrester-databyte-developer-scm-tool-adoption-and-use.html
>
> --
> Bryce Lelbach aka wash
> STE||AR Group, Center for Computation and Science, LSU
> --
> boost-spirit.com
> stellar.cct.lsu.edu
> llvm.wiki.kernel.org
>


>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost


--
Bryce Lelbach aka wash
STE||AR Group, Center for Computation and Science, LSU
--
boost-spirit.com
stellar.cct.lsu.edu
llvm.wiki.kernel.org



_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

signature.asc (501 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [git] Mercurial?

Mathias Gaunard-2
In reply to this post by Bryce Lelbach
On 19/03/12 20:54, Bryce Lelbach wrote:

> Uh, can you provide some data for this, please?
>
> The two major surveys I know contradict this.
>
> http://www.eclipse.org/org/community_survey/Eclipse_Survey_2011_Report.pdf, page 16
> http://blogs.forrester.com/application_development/2010/01/forrester-databyte-developer-scm-tool-adoption-and-use.html

Git is the first DVCS according to both those surveys.

What were you trying to say? That subversion is still a lot more popular
than Git?


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [git] Mercurial?

Dave Abrahams
In reply to this post by Sergiu Dotenco

on Mon Mar 19 2012, Sergiu Dotenco <sergiu.dotenco-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3/19/2012 7:46 PM, Bruno Santos wrote:
>
>> 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?

More attention from the community, more support, more tools work with
it, more money behind it, more people will be familiar with it in the
long run, etc., etc.

--
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
1234 ... 13
Loading...