7 ms·

This seems a little exaggerated. Before git took over there were all kinds of VCS in use including a bunch of proprietary stuff. If most of your work is done w

by jiggy2011 14y ago

This seems a little exaggerated. Before git took over there were all kinds of VCS in use including a bunch of proprietary stuff. If most of your work is done with one group of people inside your company and you decide mercurial is a better fit it would seem silly just to go with git because it is popular. Besides the two are similar enough that someone versed in mercurial should be able to learn enough git to be useful quickly enough should it be required.

ajross 14y ago
No, before git took over there was CVS (and a brief moment when svn looked like it might win, before being forgotten). There still are "all kinds of VCS including a bunch of proprietary stuff". But as before with CVS (and RCS before it) the open source community has picked an overwhelming favorite. And I'm not saying you should choose git because it's better. I'm saying git "won" in the community because it was the choice of people who want to play in the community. Culture matters, and hg's proponents, for whatever reason, are less likely to want to share their stuff.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  Well I remember MS Sourcesafe being popular a few years ago. Do hg people "share less" or are there simply less of them? IIRC github allows commits from hg as well as git. And of course not everyone (in fact possibly only the minority) is interested in cloning and issuing pull requests on OSS a huge amount of programming happens internally in corporations where everyone will use whichever VCS is mandated.
  - PuercoPop 14y ago
    it is bitbucket the one that allows both hg and git. Github only allows git
    - stouset 14y ago
      Patently and laughably false.
- samspot 14y ago
  I'd like to know your grounds for saying svn was "forgotten". Forgotten by who?
  - ajross 14y ago
    Subversion is used by very few remaining public projects, almost entirely for legacy reasons. Almost literally zero "recent" projects are using it at all. It has no more mind share than does CVS at this point, and "no one" uses CVS (again, except for a few legacy spots). I really didn't think that was controversial. Subversion was indeed a much better CVS than CVS. And the world almost jumped on it as a standard. But then git appeared. If you were a young person looking at building exciting projects from source, you might never have reason to learn svn. I think that qualifies as "forgotten"
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      I'm willing to bet there's plenty of small PHP shops out there still using SVN.
    - samspot 14y ago
      I think we're at odds because I'm thinking of developers in general and you are focused on open source work. I don't have stats, but I'd be willing to bet that a majority of code being written is closed source even today. I think this is worth remembering in any discussion about source control.

ajross 14y ago

No, before git took over there was CVS (and a brief moment when svn looked like it might win, before being forgotten). There still are "all kinds of VCS including a bunch of proprietary stuff". But as before with CVS (and RCS before it) the open source community has picked an overwhelming favorite. And I'm not saying you should choose git because it's better. I'm saying git "won" in the community because it was the choice of people who want to play in the community. Culture matters, and hg's proponents, for whatever reason, are less likely to want to share their stuff.

jiggy2011 14y ago
Well I remember MS Sourcesafe being popular a few years ago. Do hg people "share less" or are there simply less of them? IIRC github allows commits from hg as well as git. And of course not everyone (in fact possibly only the minority) is interested in cloning and issuing pull requests on OSS a huge amount of programming happens internally in corporations where everyone will use whichever VCS is mandated.
- PuercoPop 14y ago
  it is bitbucket the one that allows both hg and git. Github only allows git
  - stouset 14y ago
    Patently and laughably false.
samspot 14y ago
I'd like to know your grounds for saying svn was "forgotten". Forgotten by who?
- ajross 14y ago
  Subversion is used by very few remaining public projects, almost entirely for legacy reasons. Almost literally zero "recent" projects are using it at all. It has no more mind share than does CVS at this point, and "no one" uses CVS (again, except for a few legacy spots). I really didn't think that was controversial. Subversion was indeed a much better CVS than CVS. And the world almost jumped on it as a standard. But then git appeared. If you were a young person looking at building exciting projects from source, you might never have reason to learn svn. I think that qualifies as "forgotten"
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    I'm willing to bet there's plenty of small PHP shops out there still using SVN.
  - samspot 14y ago
    I think we're at odds because I'm thinking of developers in general and you are focused on open source work. I don't have stats, but I'd be willing to bet that a majority of code being written is closed source even today. I think this is worth remembering in any discussion about source control.