3 ms·
> But the reason git beat out the competition isn't git's excellent UI or large marketing budget, it's that those features actually provide significant value.
by glandium 10y ago
> But the reason git beat out the competition isn't git's excellent UI or large marketing budget, it's that those features actually provide significant value.
I don't know if it's true for everyone, but this is at least true for me. The reason I started to work on a git remote helper to talk to mercurial servers is that I grew frustrated that mercurial didn't have some of those features (and that the existing git remote helpers were not working well at the scale of mozilla-central, or required a local mercurial clone under the hood)
- jbergens 10y agoAnd funnily enough mercurial is today the most scalable of the two. As an example Facebook uses it for it's monorepository. Not sure about the scalability of of git-helpers though. What features were you missing, by the way? Mercurial has had rebase, squash and light branches (bookmarks) for many years now. I personally don't miss staging if I use it.
- KingMob 10y agoNot to knock Mercurial, but didn't Facebook have to apply a lot of custom changes to get it to scale up? Not sure if those were committed back.
- develop7 10y agohttps://bitbucket.org/facebook/ https://bitbucket.org/facebook/ not for these at least > Not sure if those were committed back. Some were for sure: [1] 1: https://selenic.com/hg/log?rev=fb.com https://selenic.com/hg/log?rev=fb.com