7 ms·

Damn, another project giving up on Mercurial and switching to Git. :-/ A few more major ones and basically nobody is using Mercurial anymore. How sad.

by xrstf 12y ago

pjmlp 12y ago
I am you there. Mercurial was more friendly to us Windows developers. But with Microsoft embracing Git this isn't any longer the case.
- swah 12y ago
  Git is equally hostile to everyone! Long live Git. (Maybe the way to advance the poor Gui user interaction experience is to write frontends for it?)
  - radicalbyte 12y ago
    If they're smart, Perforce will integrate their UI tools with Git. They have by far the best UI for a Git-style SCM.
    - omellet 12y ago
      Perforce is not Git-style, it's got a single central repository.
      - jksmith 12y ago
        Speaking of which, of all the shops moving to Git, prolly only a handful exercise the full value of dvcs.
        curun1r 12y ago
        The one feature I miss from Mercurial is the "hg serve" ability. When combined with the zeroconf extension, it made it really easy to push/pull changes to/from other developers. Since switching to git, I don't think we've had one (vcs) push that included commits from multiple developers, but we used to do that all the time. I know git can coerced into doing something similar, but hg made it so damn easy that developers actually used it. Addressing your actual point, most shops won't use the full value of a dvcs, but they'll all get some benefit of it being a dvcs because each and every developer's machine has a backup of the central repo which, in the event the main git server dies, can be used to restore everything to it's previously happy state. When you use a vcs like svn, you need to be a lot more paranoid about backing up the central server or you risk losing revision history.
    - olifante 12y ago
      Perforce's P4Merge is already the best GUI tool for three-way merges, and works like a charm with git.
    - j_s 12y ago
      Plastic SCM has gone this route. http://plasticscm.com/gitsync/info.html http://plasticscm.com/gitsync/info.html They also offer a powerful diff/merge tool with language-specific support. http://www.semanticmerge.com/ http://www.semanticmerge.com/
simias 12y ago
I've favored hg over git for a long time but I gave up that fight a few months back: I mostly use git for all my new code now. I think the DVCS "war" is nearing an end and git pretty clearly won it, for better or worse. Still, it's great we've had all this DVCS craze in the past years, we ended up with great open source tools that improved a lot over the CVS/SVN of yore.
- topstarnetwork 12y ago
  Hello, I fund your c web development coment very intresting, as far as developing a website in c instead of php and as I was looking for a c - c++ freelancer would you be intrested for some work? my email is tatzianarose@hotmail.com thanks
rnhmjoj 12y ago
I have never use hg. I don't really see much difference. What do you like about it?
- McP 12y ago
  There isn't much of a difference. The underlying principles of how they work are essentially the same. However hg has IMHO a more pleasant UI, and it's easier to customise. I believe Facebook chose hg for the latter reason: https://code.facebook.com/posts/218678814984400/scaling-mercurial-at-facebook/ https://code.facebook.com/posts/218678814984400/scaling-merc...
- xrstf 12y ago
  I like the simplicity and the better Windows support. Many things in git rely on you having a powerful shell, which is not the case on Windows (who wants to use cygwin all the time?). In Mercurial I never lost a commit, even as a beginner. In git I managed to accidentally make commits unreachable (yes, I know how to recover, but still, it tooks a bit of googling and trying). I very rarely need git's "remotes" feature. There's rarely a need for me to know where someone else's master is at the moment. I understand why git is doing this and I get that it's pretty flexible, but most of the time Mercurial's simple branching model is enough for me (I don't like bookmarks, they confuse the hell out of me). Also, my repositories are usually small enough that I don't notice the Python overhead compared to Git. My ultra slow old disk is more of a problem in that case. Mercurial's help is MUCH better than git's. Git's manpages are so famous for being mostly useless that people even write joke tools that generate gibberish manpages. Mercurial has a very clean documentation, with `hg help ...` just showing you what you need to know instead of (on Windows) using your browser to render an HTML manpage. And lastly: Will git 2.0 ever come out for Windows? Seems like nobody is working on that, so we Windows users still get some preview version 1.9.4 at the moment. That doesn't look to me as if Windows was a first-class citizen in git. Fun fact: Converting from git to mercurial is the easiest thing in the world (`hg convert my-git-repo new-hg-repo`), but the other way around is weird and complicated to setup (talking about hg-git).

Damn, another project giving up on Mercurial and switching to Git. :-/ A few more major ones and basically nobody is using Mercurial anymore. How sad.

by xrstf 12y ago

Damn, another project giving up on Mercurial and switching to Git. :-/ A few more major ones and basically nobody is using Mercurial anymore. How sad.

pjmlp 12y ago

I am you there. Mercurial was more friendly to us Windows developers. But with Microsoft embracing Git this isn't any longer the case.

swah 12y ago
Git is equally hostile to everyone! Long live Git. (Maybe the way to advance the poor Gui user interaction experience is to write frontends for it?)
- radicalbyte 12y ago
  If they're smart, Perforce will integrate their UI tools with Git. They have by far the best UI for a Git-style SCM.
  - omellet 12y ago
    Perforce is not Git-style, it's got a single central repository.
    - jksmith 12y ago
      Speaking of which, of all the shops moving to Git, prolly only a handful exercise the full value of dvcs.
      - curun1r 12y ago
        The one feature I miss from Mercurial is the "hg serve" ability. When combined with the zeroconf extension, it made it really easy to push/pull changes to/from other developers. Since switching to git, I don't think we've had one (vcs) push that included commits from multiple developers, but we used to do that all the time. I know git can coerced into doing something similar, but hg made it so damn easy that developers actually used it. Addressing your actual point, most shops won't use the full value of a dvcs, but they'll all get some benefit of it being a dvcs because each and every developer's machine has a backup of the central repo which, in the event the main git server dies, can be used to restore everything to it's previously happy state. When you use a vcs like svn, you need to be a lot more paranoid about backing up the central server or you risk losing revision history.
  - olifante 12y ago
    Perforce's P4Merge is already the best GUI tool for three-way merges, and works like a charm with git.
  - j_s 12y ago
    Plastic SCM has gone this route. http://plasticscm.com/gitsync/info.html http://plasticscm.com/gitsync/info.html They also offer a powerful diff/merge tool with language-specific support. http://www.semanticmerge.com/ http://www.semanticmerge.com/

simias 12y ago

I've favored hg over git for a long time but I gave up that fight a few months back: I mostly use git for all my new code now. I think the DVCS "war" is nearing an end and git pretty clearly won it, for better or worse. Still, it's great we've had all this DVCS craze in the past years, we ended up with great open source tools that improved a lot over the CVS/SVN of yore.

topstarnetwork 12y ago
Hello, I fund your c web development coment very intresting, as far as developing a website in c instead of php and as I was looking for a c - c++ freelancer would you be intrested for some work? my email is tatzianarose@hotmail.com thanks

rnhmjoj 12y ago

I have never use hg. I don't really see much difference. What do you like about it?

McP 12y ago
There isn't much of a difference. The underlying principles of how they work are essentially the same. However hg has IMHO a more pleasant UI, and it's easier to customise. I believe Facebook chose hg for the latter reason: https://code.facebook.com/posts/218678814984400/scaling-mercurial-at-facebook/ https://code.facebook.com/posts/218678814984400/scaling-merc...
xrstf 12y ago
I like the simplicity and the better Windows support. Many things in git rely on you having a powerful shell, which is not the case on Windows (who wants to use cygwin all the time?). In Mercurial I never lost a commit, even as a beginner. In git I managed to accidentally make commits unreachable (yes, I know how to recover, but still, it tooks a bit of googling and trying). I very rarely need git's "remotes" feature. There's rarely a need for me to know where someone else's master is at the moment. I understand why git is doing this and I get that it's pretty flexible, but most of the time Mercurial's simple branching model is enough for me (I don't like bookmarks, they confuse the hell out of me). Also, my repositories are usually small enough that I don't notice the Python overhead compared to Git. My ultra slow old disk is more of a problem in that case. Mercurial's help is MUCH better than git's. Git's manpages are so famous for being mostly useless that people even write joke tools that generate gibberish manpages. Mercurial has a very clean documentation, with `hg help ...` just showing you what you need to know instead of (on Windows) using your browser to render an HTML manpage. And lastly: Will git 2.0 ever come out for Windows? Seems like nobody is working on that, so we Windows users still get some preview version 1.9.4 at the moment. That doesn't look to me as if Windows was a first-class citizen in git. Fun fact: Converting from git to mercurial is the easiest thing in the world (`hg convert my-git-repo new-hg-repo`), but the other way around is weird and complicated to setup (talking about hg-git).