4 ms·

Well, saying "I love mercurial" without some mention of why you aren't using git, which is more popular, will seem like an incomplete argument. Not using what

by krosaen 15y ago

Well, saying "I love mercurial" without some mention of why you aren't using git, which is more popular, will seem like an incomplete argument. Not using what most others are using has drawbacks, so some justification is needed. But it is true that spending too much time promoting something in terms of its competition can weaken the argument. A tough road for the underdog; try explaining why you are excited about android tablets without mentioning the ipad 2 :) FWIW I love hg and android.

jarin 15y ago
> FWIW I love hg and android. You didn't explain why.
hvs 15y ago
Not using what most others are using has drawbacks, so some justification is needed. This is only true in the open source world and then only in one corner of it. Subversion is still, by far, the most used version control system in the enterprise. And why should someone have to argue why they aren't using git? If he loves Mercurial, great! He doesn't have to explain why he doesn't use every other version control system in existence.
- krosaen 15y ago
  Good question. I think git is so relevant to the mercurial argument since it is distributed, so if you are saying why you love mercurial, at least acknowledging git will strengthen your argument, as it is the most popular DCVS. Without that mention, readers might falsely think you are uninformed and haven't heard of or tried git.
brown9-2 15y ago
It seems unfair to start your argument from the position that git is the default choice and anyone who isn't using it should explain why.
raganwald 15y ago
saying "I love mercurial" without some mention of why you aren't using git, which is more popular, will seem like an incomplete argument. That's the point. When you say why you love Hg without saying why you aren't using git, you aren't arguing. The author isn't explaining how to argue more civilly, he's explaining how to make a perfectly valid statement without getting into an argument. Example: I love riding a hard tail MTB. Most riders will ask why I don't want full suspension. But I'm not arguing about why a hard tail is better. I'm explaining that I love riding a hard tail.

by krosaen 15y ago

jarin 15y ago

> FWIW I love hg and android. You didn't explain why.

hvs 15y ago

Not using what most others are using has drawbacks, so some justification is needed. This is only true in the open source world and then only in one corner of it. Subversion is still, by far, the most used version control system in the enterprise. And why should someone have to argue why they aren't using git? If he loves Mercurial, great! He doesn't have to explain why he doesn't use every other version control system in existence.

krosaen 15y ago
Good question. I think git is so relevant to the mercurial argument since it is distributed, so if you are saying why you love mercurial, at least acknowledging git will strengthen your argument, as it is the most popular DCVS. Without that mention, readers might falsely think you are uninformed and haven't heard of or tried git.

brown9-2 15y ago

It seems unfair to start your argument from the position that git is the default choice and anyone who isn't using it should explain why.

raganwald 15y ago

saying "I love mercurial" without some mention of why you aren't using git, which is more popular, will seem like an incomplete argument. That's the point. When you say why you love Hg without saying why you aren't using git, you aren't arguing. The author isn't explaining how to argue more civilly, he's explaining how to make a perfectly valid statement without getting into an argument. Example: I love riding a hard tail MTB. Most riders will ask why I don't want full suspension. But I'm not arguing about why a hard tail is better. I'm explaining that I love riding a hard tail.