4 ms·

I persist in using git mostly because it doesn't also mean I need to have python installed everywhere. I recognize this may be a minority reason, but that is a

by mitchty 10y ago

I persist in using git mostly because it doesn't also mean I need to have python installed everywhere. I recognize this may be a minority reason, but that is a significant one. The rest amount to being able to rebase/reorder my commits. At no point does "linus used it" factor in. What genuine technical points about git besides "doesn't suck" are you espousing as reasons I should switch? Note, my workplace: a: uses git b: is about as likely to switch to hg as a pig would be to fly c: follows linux upstream closely (we do kernel stuff) I know of the following things that would be reasons to move to hg, however they're more in the "nice to have" rather than "need" category. a: evolve extension b: more consistent ui If I were to list out all the cons for hg from my current perspective, here would be my top 5: a: have to unlearn fetch/pull as they are not the same between tools, which is right is academic at this point b: have to unlearn a lot of git use over the past 8 years, not against it but I need a good carrot to bother c: now I have to install python on some low power systems, honestly this is dumb needing to install a scripting language just to use a VCS, and I use python daily, but its extra bloat that really shouldn't be needed. d: last I looked (~6 months ago), i'd need to install extensions to recreate most of my workflow, again, this boils down to more effort than sticking with the status quo which by and large works out of the box. e: would be nice if hg proponents would stop with the "git users are brain damaged by bad ui" posts, it honestly just makes me roll my eyes and move on, not rethink my position, SHOW ME WHY IT IS BETTER, stop berating as that isn't helping and at best is making me think people are treating VCS choice as a religion or political affiliation, which is easily dismissed and not at all worth my time to reply.

bsder 10y ago
> I persist in using git mostly because it doesn't also mean I need to have python installed everywhere. That is a perfectly valid objective reason. It surprises me, given that I do embedded development and have yet to be in a position where Python in my toolchain is an issue, but I'm happy to concede it. > c: follows linux upstream closely (we do kernel stuff) Then git is your horse, full stop. Even as a Mercurial person, if I was following kernel stuff I'd use git, that's just common sense. > e: would be nice if hg proponents would stop with the "git users are brain damaged by bad ui" posts, it honestly just makes me roll my eyes and move on, not rethink my position, SHOW ME WHY IT IS BETTER You do realize that the UI is more than the majority of the tool, right? People have done what you ask for. Repeatedly. Including the parent post. Git power users have written extensively of the various UI brain damage and the problems it causes for non-power users. Git people concede the UI sucks and still persist in starting new projects with git. How should that be classified? > If I were to list out all the cons Do be cognizant that with the exception of objecting to python, most of your list of cons is: "I've used git and optimized for it so changing is difficult". If Microsoft/Oracle were attempting via network effects to foist such a broken tool on the open source community instead of Linus/github, people would be screaming. Personally, I can use either now. Also, personally, I now consider Mercurial to be a not-so-secret productivity advantage (well integrated with Windows, no wedged repositories, no wasted time recovering, can explain how to use it to neophytes so executive level people and non-programmers can use it, etc.). I know that my Mercurial teams won't waste 5% of their time fighting their source code system every single week--they won't even think about their source code system. My beef is that beginners think "Oh, everybody uses git so git is fine so let's use git". And then, once they've made that mistake, now they feel they have to defend it. And that's not cool.
- mitchty 10y ago
  > It surprises me, given that I do embedded development and have yet to be in a position where Python in my toolchain is an issue, but I'm happy to concede it. Admittedly its weak but I've used it to run things like git on some really small systems. I'd rather not have to try to get python running on something like an AVR. But to each their own. Not sure what embedded development is meaning here exactly but no matter. > You do realize that the UI is more than the majority of the tool, right? > People have done what you ask for. Repeatedly. Including the parent post. Git power users have written extensively of the various UI brain damage and the problems it causes for non-power users. I'm looking more for what advantage hg itself gives me, less about how much git sucks which is at this point beating a dead horse. > Do be cognizant that with the exception of objecting to python, most of your list of cons is: "I've used git and optimized for it so changing is difficult". If Microsoft/Oracle were attempting via network effects to foist such a broken tool on the open source community instead of Linus/github, people would be screaming. Indeed, but that just points to after 8-9 years of using git, minor gains in using hg just don't seem as warranted. To date most of what I have seen with hg hasn't shown me what I will gain from switching will be greater than moving. Perhaps thats due to not having to use hg constantly but with things like magit I really don't notice the git ui a lot unless I choose to drop into the command line. > Also, personally, I now consider Mercurial to be a not-so-secret productivity advantage (well integrated with Windows, no wedged repositories, no wasted time recovering, can explain how to use it to neophytes so executive level people and non-programmers can use it, etc.). I know that my Mercurial teams won't waste 5% of their time fighting their source code system every single week--they won't even think about their source code system. For my work I've no real need to integrate with windows, not sure what wedged repositories is referring to. Recovering is vague but as a worst case the reflog has always been an emergency fixer. I've not really experienced this to be honest and I'm basically the go to guy for git with my team. > My beef is that beginners think "Oh, everybody uses git so git is fine so let's use git". And then, once they've made that mistake, now they feel they have to defend it. And that's not cool. Thats fine, but a bit different than the original statement of Linus uses it therefore we must. It is more git is widely used, ignoring it or not knowing how to at least basically use it isn't a tenable position imo. But to each their own.

by mitchty 10y ago

bsder 10y ago

> I persist in using git mostly because it doesn't also mean I need to have python installed everywhere. That is a perfectly valid objective reason. It surprises me, given that I do embedded development and have yet to be in a position where Python in my toolchain is an issue, but I'm happy to concede it. > c: follows linux upstream closely (we do kernel stuff) Then git is your horse, full stop. Even as a Mercurial person, if I was following kernel stuff I'd use git, that's just common sense. > e: would be nice if hg proponents would stop with the "git users are brain damaged by bad ui" posts, it honestly just makes me roll my eyes and move on, not rethink my position, SHOW ME WHY IT IS BETTER You do realize that the UI is more than the majority of the tool, right? People have done what you ask for. Repeatedly. Including the parent post. Git power users have written extensively of the various UI brain damage and the problems it causes for non-power users. Git people concede the UI sucks and still persist in starting new projects with git. How should that be classified? > If I were to list out all the cons Do be cognizant that with the exception of objecting to python, most of your list of cons is: "I've used git and optimized for it so changing is difficult". If Microsoft/Oracle were attempting via network effects to foist such a broken tool on the open source community instead of Linus/github, people would be screaming. Personally, I can use either now. Also, personally, I now consider Mercurial to be a not-so-secret productivity advantage (well integrated with Windows, no wedged repositories, no wasted time recovering, can explain how to use it to neophytes so executive level people and non-programmers can use it, etc.). I know that my Mercurial teams won't waste 5% of their time fighting their source code system every single week--they won't even think about their source code system. My beef is that beginners think "Oh, everybody uses git so git is fine so let's use git". And then, once they've made that mistake, now they feel they have to defend it. And that's not cool.

mitchty 10y ago
> It surprises me, given that I do embedded development and have yet to be in a position where Python in my toolchain is an issue, but I'm happy to concede it. Admittedly its weak but I've used it to run things like git on some really small systems. I'd rather not have to try to get python running on something like an AVR. But to each their own. Not sure what embedded development is meaning here exactly but no matter. > You do realize that the UI is more than the majority of the tool, right? > People have done what you ask for. Repeatedly. Including the parent post. Git power users have written extensively of the various UI brain damage and the problems it causes for non-power users. I'm looking more for what advantage hg itself gives me, less about how much git sucks which is at this point beating a dead horse. > Do be cognizant that with the exception of objecting to python, most of your list of cons is: "I've used git and optimized for it so changing is difficult". If Microsoft/Oracle were attempting via network effects to foist such a broken tool on the open source community instead of Linus/github, people would be screaming. Indeed, but that just points to after 8-9 years of using git, minor gains in using hg just don't seem as warranted. To date most of what I have seen with hg hasn't shown me what I will gain from switching will be greater than moving. Perhaps thats due to not having to use hg constantly but with things like magit I really don't notice the git ui a lot unless I choose to drop into the command line. > Also, personally, I now consider Mercurial to be a not-so-secret productivity advantage (well integrated with Windows, no wedged repositories, no wasted time recovering, can explain how to use it to neophytes so executive level people and non-programmers can use it, etc.). I know that my Mercurial teams won't waste 5% of their time fighting their source code system every single week--they won't even think about their source code system. For my work I've no real need to integrate with windows, not sure what wedged repositories is referring to. Recovering is vague but as a worst case the reflog has always been an emergency fixer. I've not really experienced this to be honest and I'm basically the go to guy for git with my team. > My beef is that beginners think "Oh, everybody uses git so git is fine so let's use git". And then, once they've made that mistake, now they feel they have to defend it. And that's not cool. Thats fine, but a bit different than the original statement of Linus uses it therefore we must. It is more git is widely used, ignoring it or not knowing how to at least basically use it isn't a tenable position imo. But to each their own.