3 ms·
We're currently migrating all of our mercurial repos to git. The migration is trivial and retains the full history. After working with mercurial for the last f
by zedpm 7y ago
We're currently migrating all of our mercurial repos to git. The migration is trivial and retains the full history.
After working with mercurial for the last four years, I don't think it offers anything that git doesn't. I've found that mercurial works fine, though simple things like lightweight branching require extensions and goofy workflows (the evolve extension, topics). Integration with third-party tools and services is nonexistent. The move to git is allowing us to leverage a world of tools, as well as allowing us to skip bringing every new developer up to speed with mercurial.
- cryptonector 7y agoMindshare matters a great deal. Git won. (And thank goodness too. I don't like Mercurial's, nor Fossil's, opinionated UIs.)
- alwillis 7y agoI've found that mercurial works fine, though simple things like lightweight branching require extensions and goofy workflows (the evolve extension, topics) Not true. Out of the box with no extensions required, Mercurial supports bookmarks, which are functionally the same as Git's branches. Also, Mercurial supports even lighter branching compared to Git using anonymous branches. This blog post from 2009 explains it all: http://stevelosh.com/blog/2009/08/a-guide-to-branching-in-mercurial/ http://stevelosh.com/blog/2009/08/a-guide-to-branching-in-me...
- zedpm 7y ago> Not true. Mostly true. I've read the post you linked to; all of those approaches have significant disadvantages compared to standard git branches. We used the bookmark-based workflow for a while, and it's simply not as good as a git branch. The evolve extension and topics were build for this reason, and they finally approach a decent workflow that allows for things like cleanly discarding experimental "branches" that have been pushed to a remote.