51–60 of 122 posts
Having used ClearCase, CVS, Subversion, TFS, Git and Mercurial, I would have to say it's because not enough people have tried Mercurial. I have no interest in Git, but I think people like GitHub (or maybe don't know about BitBucket)
Having used ClearCase, CVS, Subversion, TFS, Git and Mercurial, I would have to say it's because not enough people have tried Mercurial. I have no interest in Git, but I think people like GitHub (or maybe don't know about BitBucket)
To be fair, BitBucket was way uglier than GitHub until very recently (latest redesign). That's a turn-off for most people (unfortunately). The new BitBucket is awesome, though.
Perhaps the question should be closed with an "already answered" link to this: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1598759/git-and-mercurial...
Edit: Followup with some more links:
http://schacon.github.com/2008/11/24/on-mercurial.html
http://tomayko.com/writings/the-thing-about-git
http://blogs.atlassian.com/2012/03/git-vs-mercurial-why-git/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
> It's git that is unfriendly to others... I have some code in Git with my custom patches, with upstream being Hg. `git-hg' works like a charm -- simple, clean etc. etc.. Dunno what you are talking about here. Git provides git-fast-export & git-fast-import as two-way interconnects, with well-defined data formats.
I clearly didn't, too, so I deleted the post.
am i the only who's thinking it is a nice real world solution to a real world problem?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GitHub was founded in 2008. The spike is in 2010-01. That's what the question mentions too.
I'd argue that GitHub became really good 2010-01. It takes a certain number of early adopters to group together before the social features finally become useful for everyone.
For the longest time Github just wouldn't send a tar ball when you clicked the download button. And then around 2010, BitBucket was doing a lot of stuff behind the scene and the service was down a lot. A lot of basic features just wouldn't work. They were probably getting ready to sell to Atlassian.
I think that's the main #1 reason Git and Github took off.
Another one is Linus' diatribe on SVN. That video on youtube's been viewed millions of times. The video really got the Linux fanboys jumping around all excited even though its command line interface sucks and didn't work quite well on Windows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which tool do you prefer the most?
TFS for large scale enterprise, hands-down. But I don't recommend it for small shops. (Expensive, although I know it's free for shops with 5 devs or fewer) simply because code management is easy and you can build automated deployment without having to use anything else (you can script with PowerBuilder, Ant, whatever if you like, though). The issue I've found with that is it's not easy to find people who don't code f…
Real big enterprise cannot use TFS without being in a mess with merge. You always have to merge to a parent which require a lot of organisation. Also, it's not the fastest source control when the code base is over few gigs per branches. With over 50 developers/testers (in the same project) we had reach a bottleneck with TFS.
Having used ClearCase, CVS, Subversion, TFS, Git and Mercurial, I would have to say it's because not enough people have tried Mercurial. I have no interest in Git, but I think people like GitHub (or maybe don't know about BitBucket)
This contains the answer for why git won: Mercurial people have "no interest" in it. What that tells me is that you have no interest in working with the community and contributing to other peoples' projects, most of which use git these days. Sure, if you want a SCM for your own team or your own private use, you can make a strong case for hg being "better". But that's not what SCM is for. Using it in your own ivory to…
Using loaded terms to put down people who use the tool they prefer isn't going to convince anyone that your argument has merit.