3 ms·

> ...if there had been an actual comparison and some arguments for or against one or the other. What kind of comparison are you after? To be more scientific,

> ...if there had been an actual comparison and some arguments for or against one or the other. What kind of comparison are you after? To be more scientific, let's take "git push where" and "hg push where". Now count the number of ifs and buts that you have to keep in mind when using Git (am I pushing to the same remote? is the branch "set to integrate"? does the remote has this branch name?) versus plain "push everything to where you cloned from" in Mercurial. My point is that Git has accumulated too much cruft and has introduced one too many concepts to be usable.

Skinney 13y ago
What? Git push by default pushes to where you cloned from. If you want to push to a different remote, you say so: "git push another-remote". If the remote doesn't have that branch, you create it, same as you would with bookmarks in mercurial. git push == push all branches to origin hg push == push all changesets to origin
matthewmacleod 13y ago
My point is that Git has accumulated too much cruft and has introduced one too many concepts to be usable. Your point is totally invalid, since git is self-evidently successful, and regarded by many people as usable. The "cruft" you've pointed to consists of usable, useful features. So it would be useful to talk more about areas in which git could improve—even if that involves looking at features from Mercurial—rather than engaging in vague and abstract descriptions of "cruft".
- anton_gogolev 13y ago
  As much as you want IT world to be a meritocracy, it is not. Very rarely software gets popular based exclusively on its merits. With Git, it gained popularity not because it was terribly usable [1] or generally good (it was not even going to be an SCM [2]), but because it was imposed by Linus onto a pretty large number of developers - kernel hackers, not less - and then it spread from there. [1]: http://marc.info/?l=git&m=111377572329534 http://marc.info/?l=git&m=111377572329534 [2]: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=111288700902396 http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=111288700902396
  - matthewmacleod 13y ago
    I'm familiar with the history of git. I'm also aware that nothing you said actually dealt with the fact that git is not unusable. In fact, it's objectively pretty good—if it weren't, we'd all still be using SVN. What you seem to be saying is that you prefer the UX of Mercurial. Cool, that's fine - but I'd be keen for people to invest their time in improving the experience of using git, rather than bellyaching about perceived differences which aren't really all that big. (As an aside, I don't really agree that there's a problem with git's usability. It's a complex tool, if you want it to be. But for day-to-day distributed SCM, you'll rarely have to care about most of that.)
    - anton_gogolev 13y ago
      There are no objective criteria to measure usability, so Git cannot possibly be "objectively pretty good", sorry. Again, popularity has nothing to do with merit. It's a pure happenstance that Git was chosen over Mercurial for kernel development, and it all went from there. The UX of Git cannot possibly be improved in the foreseeable future as it will be a _massive_ pile of breaking changes with people moaning all over the internet.
      - bronson 13y ago
        Git is not as bad as you claim, and Hg is not as good as you claim. Yes, I have used both. If you're looking to derail this post and do some trolling, then congratulations. You're off to a great start.

Skinney 13y ago

What? Git push by default pushes to where you cloned from. If you want to push to a different remote, you say so: "git push another-remote". If the remote doesn't have that branch, you create it, same as you would with bookmarks in mercurial. git push == push all branches to origin hg push == push all changesets to origin

matthewmacleod 13y ago

My point is that Git has accumulated too much cruft and has introduced one too many concepts to be usable. Your point is totally invalid, since git is self-evidently successful, and regarded by many people as usable. The "cruft" you've pointed to consists of usable, useful features. So it would be useful to talk more about areas in which git could improve—even if that involves looking at features from Mercurial—rather than engaging in vague and abstract descriptions of "cruft".

anton_gogolev 13y ago
As much as you want IT world to be a meritocracy, it is not. Very rarely software gets popular based exclusively on its merits. With Git, it gained popularity not because it was terribly usable [1] or generally good (it was not even going to be an SCM [2]), but because it was imposed by Linus onto a pretty large number of developers - kernel hackers, not less - and then it spread from there. [1]: http://marc.info/?l=git&m=111377572329534 http://marc.info/?l=git&m=111377572329534 [2]: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=111288700902396 http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=111288700902396
- matthewmacleod 13y ago
  I'm familiar with the history of git. I'm also aware that nothing you said actually dealt with the fact that git is not unusable. In fact, it's objectively pretty good—if it weren't, we'd all still be using SVN. What you seem to be saying is that you prefer the UX of Mercurial. Cool, that's fine - but I'd be keen for people to invest their time in improving the experience of using git, rather than bellyaching about perceived differences which aren't really all that big. (As an aside, I don't really agree that there's a problem with git's usability. It's a complex tool, if you want it to be. But for day-to-day distributed SCM, you'll rarely have to care about most of that.)
  - anton_gogolev 13y ago
    There are no objective criteria to measure usability, so Git cannot possibly be "objectively pretty good", sorry. Again, popularity has nothing to do with merit. It's a pure happenstance that Git was chosen over Mercurial for kernel development, and it all went from there. The UX of Git cannot possibly be improved in the foreseeable future as it will be a _massive_ pile of breaking changes with people moaning all over the internet.
    - bronson 13y ago
      Git is not as bad as you claim, and Hg is not as good as you claim. Yes, I have used both. If you're looking to derail this post and do some trolling, then congratulations. You're off to a great start.