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

Prefer mercurial to git

lists.gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 189 posts

Re: Prefer mercurial to git

#11

Post by nmcfarl »

nailer wrote: post #2

Context? This just seems to be a post from a Mercurial/Hg advocate. Mercurial could be 10% better than git, but unless it's 500% better, it will never displace it.

I think this is the exact right question - without context hg advocacy makes little sense.

And when I personally engage in mercurial advocacy it with an understanding that as you say, unless it's 500% better than git – which it is not – it will never displace git. However hg is every bit as good as git and most of my advocacy (as in this mail) is merely point this fact out and dispelling quite a lot of FUD, which seems to pop up in these discussions.

My goal is to see Mercurial continue in its position as the Mac (or Linux) of dvcs' to gits Windows. That is as an honest, respectable choice that you might, or might not make for valid reasons.

Re: Prefer mercurial to git

#12

Post by Codhisattva »

copx wrote: post #6

You should have linked the first post in that thread. It explains what the whole thing is actually about: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg00... Tl;dr: Mercurial is a free software project sharing GNU's goals, while Git is made by anti-GNU people who do not believe in free software and has an incompatible license.

Your Tl;dr: is wrong.

Re: Prefer mercurial to git

#14

Post by nsmartt »

[deleted] wrote: post #9
hyperbling wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

emacs is moving off of bzr.

[deleted]

> Git is an Open Source project covered by the GNU General Public License version 2 (some parts of it are under different licenses, compatible with the GPLv2).

https://github.com/git/git

Re: Prefer mercurial to git

#15

Post by pjmlp »

leobelle wrote: post #7

My biggest issues with hg are that hg's revision numbers aren't synchronized across instances, they are local only[1] making them kind of useless, you can't easily have local branches[2], and it stores changesets instead of objects. I've ever seen a convincing argument to choose hg over git. Sure you can do a lot of things with it and I'm sure it's perfectly fine to use, but if you know git, and you like git, there's…

> What does hg have that makes it better than git that you should give up git?

Better user experience out of the box for Windows shops.

This might change with Microsoft's adoption of git for TFS, but you won't find many appraisals for git at my workplace. Many people still miss hg.

Re: Prefer mercurial to git

#20

Post by ehartsuyker »

Codhisattva wrote: post #12
copx wrote: post #6

You should have linked the first post in that thread. It explains what the whole thing is actually about: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg00... Tl;dr: Mercurial is a free software project sharing GNU's goals, while Git is made by anti-GNU people who do not believe in free software and has an incompatible license.

Your Tl;dr: is wrong.

For those of us less aware, could your or copx link to an explanation or why the tl;dr is or isn't wrong, or give us a quick one?
Post reply on HN