61–70 of 79 posts
I rarely have geeky conversations with anyone (since I don't know any and that is why I hang out here) but I'm genuinely curious: Why is git more popular than hg? I tried both and hg was generally easier (for me) to pick up. I'm sure it's not JUST because of github.
For all the reasons mentionned in this thread (interface consistency, performance, ...) hg is far superior to git. But, as long as git would get the cool tools - namely, gitlab / gitlab-ci - people won't bother looking at hg. I started a new project with collaborators a month ago, we had to chose git mainly because of gitlab, as it would ease the process of managing consistently our codebase in a visual and simple wa…
Has anyone used this (or something similar)? the Hg-Git mercurial plugin http://hg-git.github.io/
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.). 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=. --reuse…
Or you can use git instaweb instead?
Has anyone used this (or something similar)? the Hg-Git mercurial plugin http://hg-git.github.io/
I would LOVE to use mercurial. If the concept of a backup bundle was completely removed. When I amend a commit with git, I don't put myself 20 minutes away from recovering that pre-amend commit. If hg comes up with some way to have a flat namespace like git, (ideally with a reflog) I'll be back.
That whole "back up a part of history so that you could undo stuff later" will be gone as soon as Changeset Evolution [1] is ready. An when it's ready, it will be tremendous. [1]: http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/ChangesetEvolution
Earlier quoted context omitted.
3 reasons: * Linux Kernel : this means for once, great popularity. Those who commit to the kernel have quite a bit of say and influence in the industry. The tools they use get free marketing just from that. But this actually leads to the next reason --> * Speed : initially git was quite a bit faster. It had been tested and benchmarked day to day on the kernel source tree. hg, bazaar and others weren't as performant b…
> Speed Actually in 2005 performance was pretty similar and for some workflows hg was definitely faster (patch + commit). Also before packs were introduced git just used massive disk space (hg had smart storage from day one).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Speed and workflow, previously. Mercurial has made up most of the difference in speed, so now git is better for some things ([temporary] topic branch workflow and history clean-up of such branches before merge is more likely to be used by git committers even if hg technically has that now, speed in a few cases, mindshare) while mercurial is better for other things like syntax, or dealing with gigantic repositories --…
I think hg has both temporary (bookmarks) and permanent (branches) branch workflow out of the box now- and has for a while.