4 ms·
The major flaw of GitLab is using Git. After having used something as logical as Mercurial it's kinda hard to switch. Besides I don't care about social and Torv
by M8 11y ago
The major flaw of GitLab is using Git. After having used something as logical as Mercurial it's kinda hard to switch. Besides I don't care about social and Torvalds-hype.
- jobvandervoort 11y agoCurrently the majority of developers and organisations are using Git. This makes it more interesting for us to focus on Git, rather than support other DVCS's.
- M8 11y agoThat's understandable - from business point of view. I bet you would just use SVN instead of innovating with a new DVCS ~7 years ago. Safe choice is a safe choice.
- rgbrgb 11y agogit is 10 years old [1]. mercurial is 9 years old [2]. git won. Way back when I was looking at both (7 years ago maybe?), it seemed that mercurial's main selling point was functional equivalence to git with a "better" architecture and source language. This is the ultimate case study in the fact that neither of those things matter to users (even deeply technical users) unless they impact user experience (stability, performance, UI, etc). [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(software) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(software) [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercurial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercurial
- isxek 11y agoLet's be clear: they were both created in the same year and the same month (April 2005). Not trying to be pedantic here.