Re: Hg vs Git

Hmm.

I've used (in order, more or less), PLS (which I expect nobody to know), Clearcase, RCS, CVS, Arch, 
TLA, HG, BZR, and Git.  I won't claim to have used svn in any real sense.

The first 4 of that list were centralized version control systems and so not applicable to this 
discussion.

Of arch, tla, hg, bzr, and git, I'd say that I enjoyed bzr over hg for a rather long time.  Now that I've 
used git, I think that git has the correct distributed model over hg and bzr.

Once you realize that git doesn't require history to be immutable (but once you've shared history, 
you have a problem if you change it), you'll find that you can do a lot of things that simply are not 
possible with hg and bzr.  (That's not entirely true; the patch queue for hg allowed you to do some 
things that you can do with git but with a tremendous amount of pain.)

Mr. Bächle, you should try to use git for a couple of your internal projects.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/leo-editor contains *somewhere* a statement from Mr. 
Ream that he was able to do things with git that he was unable to do with bzr.

-- 
Mark A. Flacy
/[email protected]/


> Hi there,
> 
> On 09.05.2016 16:57, Rob Boehne wrote:
> > For me, scons is the ONLY project I work on that uses Mercurial, and
> > having to translate each and every command is a real pain.
> > I¹ve also NOT contributed back many changes I¹ve made to get Python to
> > build properly on old UNIX systems, primarily because it was using Hg.
> 
> and because you don't use an IDE (like Eclipse) that would support both
> DVCS in a transparent fashion, and because you don't want to use a git-hg
> bridge?
> 
> > I doubt I¹m alone in this, and I¹m certain it¹s a lot easier to find a
> > competent developer who knows Git but has never used Mercurial than the
> > other way around.
> 
> I'm one of the latter category, and obviously a dying species ;) according
> to:
> 
>    http://two.pairlist.net/pipermail/scons-dev/2016-January/003374.html
> 
> Don't let me hinder progress, and feel free to switch to git at any
> time...but I then won't be much of a help when it comes to updating the
> workflow descriptions in the Wiki or helping out newcomers with DVCS
> problems.
> 
> > This is an extra effort for most developers, and that
> > extra effort will get more common, and more painful as the years go by.
> > IMHO switching to Git is a clear win.
> 
> <devils_advocate>
> When we're talking about things like "effort" and "git as being less
> painful", I'd like to renew my call for pointers to large open-source
> projects that have switched to git as DVCS (from hg preferably):
> 
>    http://two.pairlist.net/pipermail/scons-dev/2016-January/003358.html
> 
> Does anyone have a concrete example of a project that experienced a giant
> productivity boost, based on a switch of the DVCS?
> I understand that for you, and Tim, using git it would be less of a
> hindrance to simply "check in" the changes and extensions for SCons that
> you seem to have in the hopper. But I'm interested in increasing activity
> in the "long run" for the project. ;)
> 
> So, if you say that you're planning to get an active contributor, ready to
> help out on the mailing lists and squashing a bug now and then...well, then
> you win me over pretty fast. :)
> </devils_advocate>
> 
> Finally, the obligatory pointers to the archives for this and related
> discussion(s):
> 
>    http://two.pairlist.net/pipermail/scons-dev/2016-January/003344.html
>    http://two.pairlist.net/pipermail/scons-dev/2016-January/003352.html
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Dirk
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Scons-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

_______________________________________________
Scons-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev