4 ms·

>To me, it's obvious that the author has entered the comparison with a very strong git bias, so it is only naturally that git won eventually. Was it obvious be

by parfe 15y ago

>To me, it's obvious that the author has entered the comparison with a very strong git bias, so it is only naturally that git won eventually. Was it obvious because he specifically notes it in the intro to the article? Note: I’m a long-time advocate of Git, and a contributor to the project, so I am biased (but I hope my conclusions are not).

eipipuz 15y ago
That's not obvious. He clearly says he hopes his conclusions would go beyond his bias. He failed to do so, but we couldn't know that without reading the article.
BerislavLopac 15y ago
LOL no, I missed that one. But the sibling is correct, the author failed.
- felipec 15y ago
  Saying "the author failed" is easy. Presenting a case that demonstrates so is not. What I said is that they are basically the same, except for the handling of branches, not history rewriting as you suggest. I assume you agree that they are basically the same, now, if you disagree that the handling of branches is superior in git, feel free to add a comment in my blog, but after 160 comments, nobody has managed to contradict that conclusion. So no, nobody has managed to prove where exactly is the bias. It is possible that git is superior, and that's what the evidence suggests.
eslaught 15y ago
The author seems to contradict himself in a comment[1]: My objective is to show why Git is superior. (Thanks to [2] for noticing.) [1]: http://felipec.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/mercurial-vs-git-its-all-in-the-branches/#comment-5773 http://felipec.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/mercurial-vs-git-its... [2]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3437677 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3437677
- felipec 15y ago
  It's not a contradiction. Note the word why. If in the analysis it turns out I fail to show that git is indeed superior, I would have to agree mercurial is superior, or they are equal. That was not the case.

by parfe 15y ago

eipipuz 15y ago

That's not obvious. He clearly says he hopes his conclusions would go beyond his bias. He failed to do so, but we couldn't know that without reading the article.

BerislavLopac 15y ago

LOL no, I missed that one. But the sibling is correct, the author failed.

felipec 15y ago
Saying "the author failed" is easy. Presenting a case that demonstrates so is not. What I said is that they are basically the same, except for the handling of branches, not history rewriting as you suggest. I assume you agree that they are basically the same, now, if you disagree that the handling of branches is superior in git, feel free to add a comment in my blog, but after 160 comments, nobody has managed to contradict that conclusion. So no, nobody has managed to prove where exactly is the bias. It is possible that git is superior, and that's what the evidence suggests.

eslaught 15y ago

The author seems to contradict himself in a comment[1]: My objective is to show why Git is superior. (Thanks to [2] for noticing.) [1]: http://felipec.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/mercurial-vs-git-its-all-in-the-branches/#comment-5773 http://felipec.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/mercurial-vs-git-its... [2]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3437677 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3437677

felipec 15y ago
It's not a contradiction. Note the word why. If in the analysis it turns out I fail to show that git is indeed superior, I would have to agree mercurial is superior, or they are equal. That was not the case.