4 ms·
Can someone actually mention the positive side of Mercurial specifically? I'm getting bit by git so often and for those people who are barely programmers are a
by mekster 6y ago
Can someone actually mention the positive side of Mercurial specifically?
I'm getting bit by git so often and for those people who are barely programmers are also required to use git to commit their HTML/CSS stuff but once something doesn't work, I have to Google around and waste an hour trying to fix the repo and I'm all for willing to use something else if it's better but I know that people just simply jumped on it because of Linux/Linus name without thinking (kernel workflows are different than most people's but people only realized after feeling the pains) and the git's ecosystem is already far ahead of the others.
I even considered using subversion locally to push to central git but there is no such luck when the reverse is quite possible.
- type0 6y ago> Can someone actually mention the positive side of Mercurial specifically? The workflow is faster for new users to learn, less concepts to grok, good GUI support, that's about it > and for those people who are barely programmers are also required to use git to commit their HTML/CSS stuff but once something doesn't work You would find that it's difficult to get non programmers to use hg even with a GUI, unless you have some very open minded people > I know that people just simply jumped on it because of Linux/Linus name without thinking Not true, so many git users have no idea who made this tool and don't actually care, all they care is that it's open source and suits most of their tasks
- mekster 6y agoNew users don't know but early adopters who advocated to spread the ecosystem and tooling surely chose git because it was used for the kernel and guessed that it would work for everyone. New users never had any choice these days as their workplace is already using git.