3 ms·
> That said hg is the better choice for big software shops IMO, because of the lower training cost and because they probably won't use github anyway. Consideri
by the_mitsuhiko 14y ago
> That said hg is the better choice for big software shops IMO, because of the lower training cost and because they probably won't use github anyway.
Considering more people know git I would assume the training cost for hg is higher.
- aidenn0 14y agoMore people use git; I'm becoming increasingly convinced that few of them actually know git.
- the_mitsuhiko 14y ago> More people use git; I'm becoming increasingly convinced that few of them actually know git. And yet I have noticed that people find merging and branching much easier than in mercurial. Few people understand the implications of named branches in hg.
- aidenn0 14y agoYeah, named branches in hg are just weird.
- reinhardt 14y agoNot as weird as hijacking the term "branch" to mean a symlink to a ref that is not part of the history. Then again why make it easier by naming it to something more intuitive, like say, "bookmark".
- qznc 14y agoBecause a bookmark is usually immutable. If I bookmark "http://news.ycombinator.com http://news.ycombinator.com has "Hacker News" it will be same URL forever. In contrast, git branches symlink to a different ref, whenever you commit to it. A git tag could be called bookmark intuitively.
- Anderkent 14y ago> And yet I have noticed that people find merging and branching much easier than in mercurial. That's the first time I've heard this opinion - do you know what kind of complaints people have? In my experience, it's much easier to say 'When you start work on an issue, start a branch called 'issue-XXX', then once you're done we will merge it into the default branch'. I've never seen much confusion in response to that.