Re: Hg vs Git

I'm git user, and I feel pain each time there is a need to contribute to
scons.

I believe, that moving to git + github could get scons going and get
attention of much more persons/potential contributors (majority of devs
uses git and GH seems to be more popular than BB these days). I had a
chance to touch some GH-hosted projects, and they're usually more
dynamic than BB ones.

Take a look at CMake:
https://github.com/orgs/Kitware/people - 10 devs,
https://github.com/Kitware/CMake - 66 contributors active in last 2
years
(https://github.com/Kitware/CMake/graphs/contributors?from=2014-01-01&to=2016-05-11&type=c)

SCons is much better should go for much more!


W dniu 11.05.2016 o 16:23, Jonathon Reinhart pisze:
> There has been at least one case where I discovered a small issue with
> SCons and went to go submit a pull request, but then remembered SCons
> uses hg, and decided it wasn't worth the effort to install hg, and
> learn the differences between it and Git.
>
> Is this a case of laziness? Perhaps. But I suspect there are many
> others who feel the same. With Git, many people already understand the
> branch, push, pull request model.
>
> This goes for other open source projects using other VCS as well. I
> have encountered this same laziness when projects required SVN, or
> patches emailed.
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:10 PM, Mark A. Flacy <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>     I'd say that git is perfectly happy with multiple heads in a given
>     repository while hg is pretty cranky with that setup. Or at least
>     it was when I last used hg.
>
>      
>
>     Once you've pushed something to an external repository with git,
>     the history is pretty much unmutable. You'd have to convince the
>     rest of the world to agree with your view of the new history.
>
>      
>
>     I guess the bottom line for scons is that there are some people
>     who have publicly stated that using hg over git will probably
>     convince them to do something else than contribute to the project.
>     I haven't been watching that closely, but have there been cases of
>     the reverse? If not, I should think that would answer the question.
>
>      
>
>     -- 
>
>     Mark A. Flacy
>
>     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>
>
>     On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 09:43:24 AM Dirk Bächle wrote:
>
>     > Hi Mark,
>
>     >
>
>     > On 10.05.2016 04:21, Mark A. Flacy wrote:
>
>     > > Mr. Bächle, you should try to use git for a couple of your
>     internal
>
>     > > projects.
>
>     > No need to get formal... ;)
>
>     >
>
>     > I am using git for several projects (some own and some
>     open-source), and I
>
>     > don't mind it. As I tried to explain before, I'm not opposed to
>     making the
>
>     > switch to git for the SCons repo...but I'm trying to make sure
>     that we're
>
>     > doing it for the right reasons.
>
>     >
>
>     > And when single persons claim that there is a "hindrance" for
>     them in
>
>     > contributing to SCons currently, because there's so much syntax
>     that is
>
>     > hard to remember I start to wonder: with how many issues at the
>     same time
>
>     > are these users juggling? Because if one works on at most one
>     bug at a
>
>     > time, one should be able to get away with a "linear series of
>     commits":
>
>     >
>
>     > hg clone ...
>
>     > # edit
>
>     > hg commit
>
>     > hg pull / push
>
>     >
>
>     > which are all the same as in git. One can even throw in a "hg
>     add" and it
>
>     > won't hurt, but only remind you that the file is already under
>     version
>
>     > control. ;)
>
>     >
>
>     >
>
>     > It's not about my personal preferences, it's all about the project.
>
>     >
>
>     > Best regards,
>
>     >
>
>     > Dirk
>
>     >
>
>     >
>
>     > P.S.: One of my personal preferences is: I *don't* want the
>     history in my
>
>     > repos to be mutable...maybe that's why git doesn't seem to be so
>     more
>
>     > powerful than hg to me, and why I still consider them to be "on par"
>
>     > regarding functionality. At least for the work I have to do with
>     them...
>
>     >
>
>     > _______________________________________________
>
>     > Scons-dev mailing list
>
>     > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>
>     > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Scons-dev mailing list
>     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>     https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scons-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev


-- 
Paweł Tomulik, tel. (22) 234 7925
Instytut Techniki Lotniczej i Mechaniki Stosowanej
Politechnika Warszawska

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