3 ms·

Not at all. Java, .NET, PHP and SQL all offer features that Node.JS and MongoDB do not. I also don't think that GitHub is a universally perfect solution. It's

by DasIch 12y ago

Not at all. Java, .NET, PHP and SQL all offer features that Node.JS and MongoDB do not. I also don't think that GitHub is a universally perfect solution. It's clearly not and I never said they were. Using GitHub's popularity as a marketing measure is also not a binary choice between not using it at all and relying on it completely.

stephenr 12y ago
Mercurial offers features Git doesn't, but you claimed that's irrelevant because of the network effect of GitHub
- DasIch 12y ago
  In the context of choosing a DVCS for an open source project.
  - gizmogwai 12y ago
    Uh. Do you mean that, because a project is open source it has to limit itself to the lowest common denominator (not targeting git specifically here) rather than aspire to a better/more suited toolchain that its community believe in? And by the community, I do not count those not having made any contribution but complaining about what is there in the first place. This case is about the toolchain, but the same could be set about the code. Does it has to stick to an imperative form, as it is the most common widespread and understood paradigm, or can it be functional because it fits best the original design? As long as the API is clean and the documentation is clear, I'm fine making the little extra effort to enter the world of the author rather than him/her lowering his/her expectation about what the project, as a whole, should be.
- the_mitsuhiko 12y ago
  I think for an open source project git itself has some nice features that are severely lacking in hg. Since I switched to git I never looked back and handling of pull requests has become a breeze. In hg times I actually shuffled around with mq and manually applied patches because managing other people's remotes in light of named branches was a nightmare.
  - jordigh 12y ago
    I consider MQ one of hg's youthful mistakes, just like early git didn't have refs. If your biggest complaint with hg is MQ, rejoice: there are modern alternatives that make MQ almost obsolete unless your current workflow already heavily depends on MQ.

by DasIch 12y ago

stephenr 12y ago

Mercurial offers features Git doesn't, but you claimed that's irrelevant because of the network effect of GitHub

DasIch 12y ago
In the context of choosing a DVCS for an open source project.
- gizmogwai 12y ago
  Uh. Do you mean that, because a project is open source it has to limit itself to the lowest common denominator (not targeting git specifically here) rather than aspire to a better/more suited toolchain that its community believe in? And by the community, I do not count those not having made any contribution but complaining about what is there in the first place. This case is about the toolchain, but the same could be set about the code. Does it has to stick to an imperative form, as it is the most common widespread and understood paradigm, or can it be functional because it fits best the original design? As long as the API is clean and the documentation is clear, I'm fine making the little extra effort to enter the world of the author rather than him/her lowering his/her expectation about what the project, as a whole, should be.
the_mitsuhiko 12y ago
I think for an open source project git itself has some nice features that are severely lacking in hg. Since I switched to git I never looked back and handling of pull requests has become a breeze. In hg times I actually shuffled around with mq and manually applied patches because managing other people's remotes in light of named branches was a nightmare.
- jordigh 12y ago
  I consider MQ one of hg's youthful mistakes, just like early git didn't have refs. If your biggest complaint with hg is MQ, rejoice: there are modern alternatives that make MQ almost obsolete unless your current workflow already heavily depends on MQ.