to git or not to git
Paul Boddie
paul at boddie.org.uk
Fri Aug 31 11:32:26 UTC 2018
On Friday 31. August 2018 13.03.22 Alessandro Rubini wrote:
>
> But I have a question for Berhnard, who says among other things I agree
> with:
> > * Use hg or other trackers if you can.
>
> why? It's already oh so difficult to get people make decent commits to
> git, where at least I can point to all the world doing that...
I might answer that as someone else who prefers Mercurial.
Firstly, it is a capable tool for doing distributed version control whose
performance has easily been good enough for what most people need it for,
including things like the Linux kernel, which is usually the vehicle used to
discredit solutions other than Git.
It employs a conceptual model that is powerful enough for what most people
need it for. Here we ignore random people on Stack Overflow who exclaim things
about Git being a "powerful object database" when asked to justify some arcane
incantation required to do what might have been straightforward with other
solutions.
It has had a decent user interface from day one, as far as I can tell.
Meanwhile, I recall advice on adopting Git which involved the Cogito front-
end, now long since merged in with the actual Git interface, I guess.
(Developers find a Subversion-style command interface comforting: who knew?!)
There is interoperability with Git that is presumably acceptable given that
people managed to migrate their stuff to Git after being lobbied to move to
Git(Hub).
It is actively maintained. I may not like the nature of some of the
contributing organisations, but I cannot dispute that there are organisations
who would not want to see it go away.
All of the above are merely things that do not disqualify solutions like
Mercurial, and from personal experience I could probably suggest tools like
Bazaar (the "NG" variant, of course, given that Canonical pretended that the
original Bazaar never existed) with caveats about the last point, although I
imagine that someone still maintains that, too, maybe just not Canonical any
more.
But possibly far more important than the above, which is only stated to
undermine claims of "not good enough" is that we all benefit from choice. I
could probably find some advantages of Mercurial, too, but I would be
satisfied with just giving everything a fair hearing.
Paul
More information about the Discussion
mailing list