4 ms·

Git and Hg accomplish essentialy the same thing. The platform support and tool/utility support for Mercurial on windows in important to note. I decided to choo

by vimalg2 16y ago

Git and Hg accomplish essentialy the same thing. The platform support and tool/utility support for Mercurial on windows in important to note. I decided to choose Mercurial as the VCS for my 'work'. This was a team that had no prior exposure to VC before. And works in a mixed environment. Hg follows the 'one true way' philosophy of Python; so there's just a single command to learn for each task. Plus, Bitbucket's new Free pricing plan for tiny teams convinced me to go with it for online hosting(rather than roll our own hg server over vpn) Though, If I had to choose a host/vcs for 'my awesome FOSS community project', it would go on Github.

woogley 16y ago
This is basically where I stand as well. Git has no real appeal for me, but GitHub does. Plus, with the ridiculously easy hg-git[1] tool, I'm able to take advantage of GitHub while staying in my Hg comfort zone :) [1]: http://hg-git.github.com/ http://hg-git.github.com/
- chousuke 16y ago
  Heh, I'm the exact opposite. I use a hg-to-git tool to access hg repositories, because I'm much more comfortable with git. I often hear people claiming hg is easier to use and has a better interface, but every time I have to use hg it rubs me the wrong way because I can't use it like I use git :/ (In particular, I find hg branches needlessly complicated and cumbersome compared to git's "just a pointer" model) I guess between the two you'll end up using the one you first bother to learn beyond memorising basic commands.
  - cageface 16y ago
    Same. Branches are a dealbreaker.
  - megaman821 16y ago
    hg bookmarks are the equivalent of git branches for the most part. Check out those next time you use mercurial.
int3 16y ago
As someone who hasn't used Hg before, I'm curious -- what are some examples of Git commands that are better executed in Hg?
- mckoss 16y ago
  I use both git and hg - and like both of them (though I have more experience with hg). Github is far and away the best hosted distributed version control service, with a constant stream of innovative features for open-source developers over the last 2 years. Git has had two main drawbacks in my mind. 1) Much of it is implemented as script commands, and I think it still requires you run an emulated shell in Windows to use it (by contrast, Mercurial is a pure python app, and is ultra-portable). 2) Coming from the Linux community, it seems a little heavy weight for small projects. Some command require what seem like extra steps on Git as compared to Hg. For example, Git requires that you do a "git add" before doing a "git commit". Mercurial assumes that you want to add all the changed files in your repo (or you can list the files needed in a commit). For complex scenarios, Git's system does provide a bit more control in packaging up exactly the set of changes you want in each atomic revision. Besides these minor historical differences, I think they both are excellent, and are really a matter of personal or team preference.
  - calloc 16y ago
    The differences on commit both have good arguments. hg is going for ease of use and is very much like the non-dvcs's that came before it, like CVS and Subversion where a commit commits all changed files. git add just adds the file to the index and stages it for commit, this means you can group files logically depending on what has changed, you can even using git add -p have only certain parts of a files modifications be committed and the rest be staged for the next commit. This can be very powerful. For example, if I did a full refactoring of a class, and fixed a quick bug rather than committing them both at the same time in the patch I can just keep the bug fix and then later commit the re-factored code even if it is in the same file.
    - cmurphycode 16y ago
joske2 16y ago
Why would you choose Github over Bitbucket for your FOSS projects? I haven't used Bitbucket yet, so I'm interested in a comparison.
- vimalg2 16y ago
  Large Hacker userbase.

by vimalg2 16y ago

woogley 16y ago

This is basically where I stand as well. Git has no real appeal for me, but GitHub does. Plus, with the ridiculously easy hg-git[1] tool, I'm able to take advantage of GitHub while staying in my Hg comfort zone :) [1]: http://hg-git.github.com/ http://hg-git.github.com/

chousuke 16y ago
Heh, I'm the exact opposite. I use a hg-to-git tool to access hg repositories, because I'm much more comfortable with git. I often hear people claiming hg is easier to use and has a better interface, but every time I have to use hg it rubs me the wrong way because I can't use it like I use git :/ (In particular, I find hg branches needlessly complicated and cumbersome compared to git's "just a pointer" model) I guess between the two you'll end up using the one you first bother to learn beyond memorising basic commands.
- cageface 16y ago
  Same. Branches are a dealbreaker.
- megaman821 16y ago
  hg bookmarks are the equivalent of git branches for the most part. Check out those next time you use mercurial.

int3 16y ago

As someone who hasn't used Hg before, I'm curious -- what are some examples of Git commands that are better executed in Hg?

mckoss 16y ago
I use both git and hg - and like both of them (though I have more experience with hg). Github is far and away the best hosted distributed version control service, with a constant stream of innovative features for open-source developers over the last 2 years. Git has had two main drawbacks in my mind. 1) Much of it is implemented as script commands, and I think it still requires you run an emulated shell in Windows to use it (by contrast, Mercurial is a pure python app, and is ultra-portable). 2) Coming from the Linux community, it seems a little heavy weight for small projects. Some command require what seem like extra steps on Git as compared to Hg. For example, Git requires that you do a "git add" before doing a "git commit". Mercurial assumes that you want to add all the changed files in your repo (or you can list the files needed in a commit). For complex scenarios, Git's system does provide a bit more control in packaging up exactly the set of changes you want in each atomic revision. Besides these minor historical differences, I think they both are excellent, and are really a matter of personal or team preference.
- calloc 16y ago
  The differences on commit both have good arguments. hg is going for ease of use and is very much like the non-dvcs's that came before it, like CVS and Subversion where a commit commits all changed files. git add just adds the file to the index and stages it for commit, this means you can group files logically depending on what has changed, you can even using git add -p have only certain parts of a files modifications be committed and the rest be staged for the next commit. This can be very powerful. For example, if I did a full refactoring of a class, and fixed a quick bug rather than committing them both at the same time in the patch I can just keep the bug fix and then later commit the re-factored code even if it is in the same file.
  - cmurphycode 16y ago

joske2 16y ago

Why would you choose Github over Bitbucket for your FOSS projects? I haven't used Bitbucket yet, so I'm interested in a comparison.

vimalg2 16y ago
Large Hacker userbase.