Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mercurial 2.9 released

mercurial.selenic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 79 posts

Re: Mercurial 2.9 released

#11

Post by toggle »

notwedtm wrote: post #2

I 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?

For me, it's:

1. The queues extension.

2. A bazillion other extensions.

3. The source code is pretty reasonable -- even mortal humans can contribute and write their own extensions.

I've found the queues extension to be really useful. It's like having multiple staging areas, which will later become multiple commits. I tend to change too many things, and then remember that I need to create specific commits. Queues makes that possible. I haven't found a good way of doing that in git, although I still use git every day without any big problems.

Re: Mercurial 2.9 released

#12

Post by yapcguy »

isxek wrote: post #3
notwedtm wrote: post #2

I 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…

SourceTree seems to get slower and slowerespecially if you have submodules and lots of branches. Not sure why. Any good alternatives out there?

Re: Mercurial 2.9 released

#13

Post by kyrra »

nilved wrote: post #6
notwedtm wrote: post #2

I 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…

Git an Mercurial are so similar. You have to remember that Git, Mercurial, and Bazaar were all released within a month of one another to do basically the same thing (because BitKeeper took their licenses away from linux debs). They all have very similar concepts and try to solve the same problem in near the same way. Each of these DVCSs have stolen concepts from one another and there isn't a lot differentiating them. Sure, syntax and terminology differ, but they all end up working pretty similar to one another.

You have tools like Kiln Harmony[0] that lets you use git/mercurial for the same repo (looks like it cross-commit between the 2).

Git gives you all commands all at once, while Mercurial gives you just the functionality needed 90% of the time that can't really get you in trouble. Mercurial ships officially supported extensions with Mercurial that let you do history rewriting and other fun stuff that people are used to with git rebase.

I'm more a fan of Mercurial's CLI syntax/terminology, but Git has really won the popularity contest at this point. If you ever have questions about Git usage, the question has probably already been asked and has a lot more people that know and enjoy it.

Mercurial does have some advantages going for it still I believe. Being purely written in python makes it work a bit better on Windows. And as Facebook has said, it is easier to develop new plugins for Mercurial (at least given their skillset). I also like the Mercurial Largefile extension (if you have to deal with a lot of binary data). I know there are 3rd party modules like git-annex, but nothing officially part of Git.

[0] http://blog.fogcreek.com/kiln-harmony-internals-the-basics/

Re: Mercurial 2.9 released

#14

Post by isxek »

yapcguy wrote: post #12
isxek wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

SourceTree seems to get slower and slowerespecially if you have submodules and lots of branches. Not sure why. Any good alternatives out there?

If you're using just Git, have you tried Git Extensions (https://code.google.com/p/gitextensions/)? We don't use any submodules where I work, so I've never tried it with that.

Re: Mercurial 2.9 released

#17

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

nilved wrote: post #6
notwedtm wrote: post #2

I 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…

> Mercurial isn't the terrible DVCS that people left for greener git pastures; indeed it's the opposite:

For everybody who does not like git there is one who does. I vastly prefer git over hg after having used hg for a few years and I did not regret switching a single bit.

Re: Mercurial 2.9 released

#18

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

isxek wrote: post #3
notwedtm wrote: post #2

I 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…

> 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.).

You can do the same in git:

git daemon --verbose --export-all --base-path=.git --reuseaddr --strict-paths .git/

or

git daemon --verbose --export-all --base-path=. --reuseaddr .

Re: Mercurial 2.9 released

#19

Post by pekk »

sdfjkl wrote: post #15

Very glad to see this in between all the git monoculture. Yes, GitHub is kind of nice for some things, but git really isn't.

What a contentless comment. One might just as well flatly claim that mercurial isn't nice for anything.

Re: Mercurial 2.9 released

#20

Post by leobelle »

yapcguy wrote: post #10
nilved wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I like git because it stores objects, not diffs and you can recover from almost anything with reflog.
Post reply on HN