101–110 of 189 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny, at my company it is the oppositive. If you give the developers the choice, they would drop git and go back to mercurial.
Then why not switch to mercurial?
Many of those customers have been sold to git hype before getting us on board.
Seems like that isn't the same situation. Rather the author should have asked " Windows and Mac OS X are also more popular; does this mean we shouldn't restrict developers to using a non-Windows, non-OS X system?" and the answer is quite simply "no, you shouldn't". Choosing a VCS means every needs to use that VCS. The same is not [necessarily] true for which operating systems can be used for development.
I use Git and Mercurial daily. They're both ok. However.. I prefer Git to mercurial, mainly because: - Git is noticeably faster for all operations (yeah, specially if you don't use GitHub for pull/push as they're slow as hell ;-) - Git has sensible default settings, for example, git log is easier than hg log|less. Similarly, git show HEAD^ is easier than hg log --patch --rev tip. (Both are easier to remember, type, a…
I know what you mean about hg not invoking a pager by default. I understand why the hg maintainers haven't done it, but it's still mildly annoying every time i have to throw in a |less.
I have no idea what you're talking about with queues. The last time i used queues was to do stashing back before hg got a proper shelve in the core. I don't think there's any sane use case which requires them now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then why not switch to mercurial?
I don't know the specifics of his case, but there could be several reasons. A likely one is that the benefits of a switch wouldn't outweigh the costs, at least not within a reasonable timeframe. Another is that there may not be resources to dedicate to such an effort, even if the return would be suitable. And yet another could be management buying into all of the git hype we've been subjected to a lot lately. Git (an…
We do enterprise consulting and are bound to the technology that is already in place. In 90% of our projects we seldom introduce anything new.
Many of our customers have been sold into git hype and have been moving or have recently moved to git.
Why are people sweating small stuff like version control systems? How can you be a fanboy of a thing that keeps track of branches and patches. It's only incidentally related to Software development, you shouldn't feel as if a limb of yours was amputated if you \ gasp\ had to use a different one for another project. It's like using a different mail client or a different bug tracker; it doesn't affect what you can expr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
You mean tortoiseHG? There's tortoisegit as well. And the first Windows-only proprietary client I could find supports both systems (Smartgithg: http://www.syntevo.com/smartgithg/ )
Mercurial being Python based has less UNIX feeling than Git on its workflow experience.
Plus there are better plugins for Visual Studio integration available then for Git.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> while Git is made by anti-GNU people who do not believe in free software
As stated in above comments I would find it hard to believe Linus would not say that GNU is a valuable asset or software built strictly promoting GNU/FSF principles is bad ... but he's been labeled as anti-GNU for writing software that has a more permissible license. I don't see how this could be an even more "with us or against us" attitude.
You could argue the above statement is an overgeneralization of what the OP said to the whole movement. But there are plenty of thing that prominent individuals, who work on GNU and represent the FSF, have said that would support this attitude.
If you're okay with using closed-source services, Fog Creek's Kiln allows you to have repositories that can be accessed with both git and hg; commits/branches/bookmarks in one will show up in the other automatically.
It seems to me that this argument could be solved if someone went and built a F/OSS equivalent that did the same thing for the emacs devs.
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.
>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.