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

71–80 of 189 posts

Re: Prefer mercurial to git

#71

Post by judk »

jeltz wrote: post #70
blibble wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

git is as prone to bitrot as hg. git doesn't run fsck on the entire repo for each operation, and unless you fsck or clone you won't detect corruption for quite a while. it's exactly the same for hg, which is built on the same hashing concept as git (actually the other way round, as hg came first).

Mercurial was announced on 2005-04-19 and git on 2005-04-07, so no Mercurial was not first. Edit: Monotone is older than git though.

I think we can state they weren't copying each other.

Re: Prefer mercurial to git

#73

Post by masklinn »

michael_storm wrote: post #69
masklinn wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Git has sensible default settings, for example, git log is easier than hg log|less. cat >> ~/.hgrc [pager] pager = less -FRX [extensions] pager= There, I fixed it. > Similarly, git show HEAD^ is easier than hg log --patch --rev tip Wait, what? Those commands do completely different things. What are you trying to do? Furthermore, the assertion that `git show` is "easier" than `hg log` seems odd on its face, why is i…

> There, I fixed it. GP's point was about defaults, not what you can configure. Even being somewhat familiar with hg, I didn't know about the "pager" extension. > `git show` does not show a patch by default[...] It does for me, with git 1.7.9.5. > (hg has no prohibition against what git calls "detached heads", they're just anonymous branches) I have never understood why this is useful. Why not just name your heads so…

> GP's point was about defaults

Granted, but he then describes the difficulty of typing `hg log | less`. And defaults cut both ways, I still can't fathom why `git log HEAD` would display the whole repository history.

> It does for me, with git 1.7.9.5.

Doesn't for me with git 1.8.5.4. Regardless I removed that part since it's not the gist of the issue and the official documentation asserts it should.

> I have never understood why this is useful. Why not just name your heads something, anything?

Why is a meaningless name better than no name at all? Why is git's default behaviour of losing unnamed heads altogether better than just leaving them alone?

Re: Prefer mercurial to git

#74

Post by judk »

nousernamesleft wrote: post #56
Karunamon wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>while Git is made by anti-GNU people who do not believe in free software and has an incompatible license. WTF? Git is GPLv2 - the exact same as the Linux kernel. A great many developers are avoiding v3 due to the changes it made. And "anti-GNU people" is just a lame insult.

>And "anti-GNU people" is just a lame insult It is an insult? Like "people with common sense" or "individuals of sound mind"?

Or "chair-throwers"?

Re: Prefer mercurial to git

#76

Post by gcv »

dllthomas wrote: post #65
gcv wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A slight exaggeration, but yes, that's quite close to the OP's argument (Git is GPLv2 and will not change; Hg is GPLv2+ and therefore closer in spirit to GNU's goals and a GNU project like Emacs should favor GPLv3 and AGPL tools). Luckily, that particular argument is thoroughly rebutted downthread. Choice quote: "Emacs shot itself in this foot already" by choosing Bzr, GNU's blessed VCS, for such political reasons. (…

Hg is GPLv2 or later, which (importantly) permits incorporation of Hg code in GPLv3 and AGPL codebases, but is not quite the same as it being GPLv3.

I stand corrected and edited my comment accordingly. Thanks!

Re: Prefer mercurial to git

#77

Post by ufmace »

masklinn wrote: post #45
ufmace wrote: post #22

I've been meaning to do a blog post about this for a while, but I've tried both, and so far, I prefer Git because of the way it treats branches. Git seems far friendlier to the workflow of just doing stuff, and deciding how you want to commit it later. In Git, it's easy to work for a while, then decide you have 3 commits worth of changes, and one of them really ought to be in its own branch, and commit it all like th…

> Where Mercurial falls short to me is that if you create a branch in your main repository like that, then it never goes away as far as I can tell. `bookmarks` will do that. Or you can use unnamed heads and track them manually[0] (that's essentially what bookmarks — and git branches — do). "Detached heads" are not a thing in mercurial, heads don't have to be named. [0] obviously there's nothing to track if you're jus…

I hadn't heard of that, and it does sound like a nice feature, but it still seems a little hacky compared to Git branches. At best, it would be as good as them, but then why not stick with the original?

Oddly enough, I find myself liking the simplicity of Git here. You can do pretty complex stuff with it, but having only one type of branch seems to help some. That, and the local-only stashsets, which seem to be intentionally kept as simple as possible. In Mercurial, you have named branches, unnamed branches, cloned repos, bookmarks, maybe some other stuff that I don't know about, and I'm not really sure how they all interact and what's used for what.

Re: Prefer mercurial to git

#78

Post by bjourne »

Karunamon wrote: post #63
dllthomas wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was stated was "anti-GNU". Decoupling GNU from the FSF is weird.

That still doesn't wash. It is quite possible to believe that the GNU project and what's associated with it (FSF) is a net positive while disagreeing with some of the actions of its founders or boosters, or some of their ideology. The GNU/FSF mindset is one of "You're either with us or against us" - but over here in the real world, things are not so black and white.

> The GNU/FSF mindset is one of "You're either with us or against us" - but over here in the real world, things are not so black and white.

That isn't in the least true. You should be very careful when trying to decode someones mindset because now you are putting words in someones mouth that never was there in the first place.

Re: Prefer mercurial to git

#79

Post by judk »

geocar wrote: post #21
[deleted] wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

git is GPLv2 not GPLv2-or-any-later-version.

GPLv2-or-layer is effectively GPLv2 plus recipient-friendly features. It is NOT suitable for the intended purpose of GPLv3, which adds restrictions on the recipient (for the benefit of 2nd-order recipients of derivatives).

Re: Prefer mercurial to git

#80

Post by judk »

geocar wrote: post #21
[deleted] wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

git is GPLv2 not GPLv2-or-any-later-version.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#VersionTwoOrLater

: GPLv2-or-layer is effectively GPLv2 plus recipient-friendly features. It is NOT fully suitable for the intended purpose of GPLv3, which adds restrictions on the recipient (for the benefit of 2nd-order recipients of derivatives). But it is better than GPLv2, and the best it can be without time travel. V2OrLater code can be incorporated in V3 code, but can also be incorporated in code that is less GNU-sense-of-Free than V3

Post reply on HN