5 ms·

I am surprised that they are moving towards git and not Mercurial. Isn't Microsoft a sponsor of Mercurial? Perhaps this is because hg already has very good tool

I am surprised that they are moving towards git and not Mercurial. Isn't Microsoft a sponsor of Mercurial? Perhaps this is because hg already has very good tools for Windows. I suppose I am just a little confused as to why git gets more attention than hg.

jarito 14y ago
The article seems pretty clear on that. "When we made the decision that we were going to take the DVCS plunge, we looked at many options. Should we build something? Buy something? Adopt OSS? We looked at Git, Mercurial and others. It didn’t take long to realize that Git was quickly taking over the DVCS space and, in fact, is virtually synonymous with DVCS."
- xradionut 14y ago
  It's worrying that Git is becoming the OSS "monopoly" in the DVCS space.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - squidsoup 14y ago
    For me, this is primarily a reflection of the quality of service and community on Github rather than any quality intrinsic to git. I prefer mercurial to git, but find myself using git significantly more as virtually every dependancy in the apps I build lives on github. I do think however that there are lots of teams, particularly in enterprise, that are quietly and happily using mercurial.
tobyjsullivan 14y ago
I think you first have to ask why Microsoft is supporting git when Team Foundation is, itself, Microsoft's primary source control system. The answer is most likely because people use git. Lots of people use git - particularly the crowd Microsoft is actively struggling to appeal to which is the entrepreneurial/startup crowd. I've never used hg so I can't attest as to which is "better" but I really don't think that matters to most people. The only question is if it is "good enough" and git is.
- fusiongyro 14y ago
  The OP is simply saying that it seems odd that Microsoft would pour $20,000+ into Mercurial and then add git support to VS. http://mercurial.selenic.com/sponsors/ http://mercurial.selenic.com/sponsors/ I'd bet this is simply a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. I had no idea Microsoft were sponsoring Mercurial--even that seems odd, spending money on an open source competitor to a product they also make. I think your analysis is spot on.
  - shanselman 14y ago
    No, they knew what was happening. http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/177875/why-is-the-sudden-increase-in-number-of-git-submitters-on-debian-popcon-graph-in http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/177875/why-is...
  - smackfu 14y ago
    It's not like $20k is a lot to Microsoft.
    - fusiongyro 14y ago
      It's more than the $0 it's given git.
      - arrbee 14y ago
        Actually, MS has contributed significantly more than $20k worth of developer time to git / libgit2 over the past months, all open source GPL code
        fusiongyro 14y ago
        This only makes the $20K to Mercurial seem weirder, don't you think? It underscores my point that it's hard for large organizations to keep their official positions on things straight.
  - 14y ago
CurtHagenlocher 14y ago
Microsoft initially made Codeplex work with Mercurial. I don't know why Mercurial was chosen over Git at that time, but perhaps it was because of Git's reputation for working poorly under Windows. I suspect that the sponsorship dates to those days.

jarito 14y ago

The article seems pretty clear on that. "When we made the decision that we were going to take the DVCS plunge, we looked at many options. Should we build something? Buy something? Adopt OSS? We looked at Git, Mercurial and others. It didn’t take long to realize that Git was quickly taking over the DVCS space and, in fact, is virtually synonymous with DVCS."

xradionut 14y ago
It's worrying that Git is becoming the OSS "monopoly" in the DVCS space.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- squidsoup 14y ago
  For me, this is primarily a reflection of the quality of service and community on Github rather than any quality intrinsic to git. I prefer mercurial to git, but find myself using git significantly more as virtually every dependancy in the apps I build lives on github. I do think however that there are lots of teams, particularly in enterprise, that are quietly and happily using mercurial.

tobyjsullivan 14y ago

I think you first have to ask why Microsoft is supporting git when Team Foundation is, itself, Microsoft's primary source control system. The answer is most likely because people use git. Lots of people use git - particularly the crowd Microsoft is actively struggling to appeal to which is the entrepreneurial/startup crowd. I've never used hg so I can't attest as to which is "better" but I really don't think that matters to most people. The only question is if it is "good enough" and git is.

fusiongyro 14y ago
The OP is simply saying that it seems odd that Microsoft would pour $20,000+ into Mercurial and then add git support to VS. http://mercurial.selenic.com/sponsors/ http://mercurial.selenic.com/sponsors/ I'd bet this is simply a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. I had no idea Microsoft were sponsoring Mercurial--even that seems odd, spending money on an open source competitor to a product they also make. I think your analysis is spot on.
- shanselman 14y ago
  No, they knew what was happening. http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/177875/why-is-the-sudden-increase-in-number-of-git-submitters-on-debian-popcon-graph-in http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/177875/why-is...
- smackfu 14y ago
  It's not like $20k is a lot to Microsoft.
  - fusiongyro 14y ago
    It's more than the $0 it's given git.
    - arrbee 14y ago
      Actually, MS has contributed significantly more than $20k worth of developer time to git / libgit2 over the past months, all open source GPL code
      - fusiongyro 14y ago
        This only makes the $20K to Mercurial seem weirder, don't you think? It underscores my point that it's hard for large organizations to keep their official positions on things straight.
- 14y ago

CurtHagenlocher 14y ago

Microsoft initially made Codeplex work with Mercurial. I don't know why Mercurial was chosen over Git at that time, but perhaps it was because of Git's reputation for working poorly under Windows. I suspect that the sponsorship dates to those days.