4 ms·
Honestly, I'm really disappointed they chose GitHub over BitBucket. Not because of any political reasons, but just because I love Mercurial and detest git.
by amyjess 11y ago
Honestly, I'm really disappointed they chose GitHub over BitBucket.
Not because of any political reasons, but just because I love Mercurial and detest git.
- andrepd 11y agoWhy is that so? And how is this relevant to TFA?
- bsg75 11y agoIts relevant because it forces a change to the DVCS used by the project and participants.
- andrepd 11y agoMaybe I didn't understand correctly, but the post doesn't specify whether the project is dropping Mercurial for good or merely changing hosts because of the impending closure of Google Code.
- jessaustin 11y agoVim is currently using hg, as mentioned in TFA. Since GitHub doesn't support that without some shims, it seems likely that the project will move to git as well. Contributors who prefer hg might well be disappointed by that.
- jaybaker 11y agoInteresting. Just curious, why do you like hg more than git? Not trying to start a flame war, just interested in learning more about it.
- amyjess 11y agoGit was developed by kernel hackers for kernel hackers, and it really feels like it from an interface perspective. Git commands are baroque and arcane, and it's a pain in the ass. Hg, on the other hand, was developed from a perspective of "let's make a distributed version of Subversion", which resulted in a much more user-friendly set of commands. It feels like using SVN, only with all the benefits of DVCS, which is a much better workflow for me because I came from an SVN background before I started using any DVCS. It's also changeset-based rather than snapshot-based, which I find easier to deal with (again, because I come from an SVN background). It's also nice having revision numbers in addition to the hashes. Oh, and I don't have to deal with staging-related headaches when working with hg, unlike git.