Mercurial 2.9 released
mercurial.selenic.com
Mercurial 2.9 released
1–10 of 79 posts
Re: Mercurial 2.9 released
#2I would be interested in hearing from people who are using hg still. What is the reasoning? Do you see something in hg that the rest of us don't? Are there specific features of hg that git doesn't have?
Re: Mercurial 2.9 released
#3I would be interested in hearing from people who are using hg still. What is the reasoning? Do you see something in hg that the rest of us don't? Are there specific features of hg that git doesn't have?
Speaking for myself: the one specific thing I use every now and then in Mercurial is "hg serve" command. It allows me to serve up my changes to others in an ad-hoc way without needing to set up a repo in the usual places (Bitbucket, Github, etc.).
If one needs to set up a local repo hosting service for internal use in a .NET company, there's SCM Manager (http://www.scm-manager.org/), which is free, supports both Hg and Git, and (IMO) pretty easy to put up on a Windows server. I have not tried others that use purely Git, though, and I've never tried setting SCM Manager up on a Linux server.
Personally, I have no problem if the whole team decides to use Git instead of what we're using now (TFS), but most of them, if not all, avoid the CLI like a plague. Even with excellent GUI frontends like Git Extensions and SourceTree.
Re: Mercurial 2.9 released
#4I would be interested in hearing from people who are using hg still. What is the reasoning? Do you see something in hg that the rest of us don't? Are there specific features of hg that git doesn't have?
We use hg because bitbucket.org offered free private repos (no git back then) and it completely meets our needs.
I'm also not familiar enough with git to know what benefits it provides over mercurial.
Re: Mercurial 2.9 released
#5I would be interested in hearing from people who are using hg still. What is the reasoning? Do you see something in hg that the rest of us don't? Are there specific features of hg that git doesn't have?
Mozilla does. It's been discussed numerous times on mozilla.dev mailing lists [1], with a lot of great discussion about it.
[1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform...
Re: Mercurial 2.9 released
#6I would be interested in hearing from people who are using hg still. What is the reasoning? Do you see something in hg that the rest of us don't? Are there specific features of hg that git doesn't have?
Mercurial isn't the terrible DVCS that people left for greener git pastures; indeed it's the opposite: GitHub is why git won, and people are still learning how terrible git is and how awesome Mercurial is. They don't "still use" Mercurial, they "still use" git.
Mercurial has a great API. git has a terrible API. Mercurial is a joy to extend in Python. git is impossible to extend to any meaningful degree and is a terrible mess of Perl, shell script and C.
git is a hack and Mercurial is the future.
Re: Mercurial 2.9 released
#7I would be interested in hearing from people who are using hg still. What is the reasoning? Do you see something in hg that the rest of us don't? Are there specific features of hg that git doesn't have?
Mozilla does. It's been discussed numerous times on mozilla.dev mailing lists [1], with a lot of great discussion about it. [1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform...
Facebook does as well.
https://code.facebook.com/posts/218678814984400/scaling-merc...
Re: Mercurial 2.9 released
#8I would be interested in hearing from people who are using hg still. What is the reasoning? Do you see something in hg that the rest of us don't? Are there specific features of hg that git doesn't have?
I've been using both Git and Hg for different projects and found with recent releases (2.6 onwards) mercurial getting quite fast. I think hg commands are more sane and exposes only what it's required by users. Also there isn't anything you can do with hg but can't do with git and vice versa, if you look closely. These are just the tools that must help you get going, so if you/co-workers are comfortable with git, there is no reason to switch to hg. (and from hg to git as well). They both have pros and cons so we will never find THE BEST dvcs. Don't bother too much (they both are super capable) rather focus on problems that need more attention.
Re: Mercurial 2.9 released
#9The only bug here that was "bugging" me was that issue 3857, where you had to specify the username in your config rather than being able to just do it on the fly in the command. Nice to see the rest getting fixed, though.
While we're talking about Mercurial (which is rare), the crecord extension may be getting Windows support soon -- there's a Windows fork, and the original author wants to merge it in. Crecord is a command-line interface for choosing which specific lines to include in a commit. It's one of the reasons why I feel hg is very useable from the command line, even if you aren't a command-line wizard.
crecord: https://bitbucket.org/edgimar/crecord/
windows fork: https://bitbucket.org/jmb/crecord
Re: Mercurial 2.9 released
#10I would be interested in hearing from people who are using hg still. What is the reasoning? Do you see something in hg that the rest of us don't? Are there specific features of hg that git doesn't have?
Mercurial isn't the terrible DVCS that people left for greener git pastures; indeed it's the opposite: GitHub is why git won, and people are still learning how terrible git is and how awesome Mercurial is. They don't "still use" Mercurial, they "still use" git. Mercurial has a great API. git has a terrible API. Mercurial is a joy to extend in Python. git is impossible to extend to any meaningful degree and is a terri…
I use both. I dont think Git 'won' but it is more popular. I suspect many git users dont even know why they use git except because they were told to, they probably never tried hg or know anything about darcs, bitkeeper, etc.