Hi Guido,
I think we are now getting to the core of the story, very nice
discussion so far.
Guido Ostkamp wrote:
> Hello Björn,
>
> On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
>> About the documentation: I really dont think you are better off than
>> git documentation-wise.
>
> I was not comparing docs Mercurial vs. Git. I just expressed that
>
> 0) strip is lacking features
Yeah. It's unfortunate that you either have to
a) jot down the fist revision on the "bookmarked local branch" to
remember it
b) or create a tag on that revision just to have it stripped later
Can't be that difficult to improve strip here, hope they'll do it.
> 1) mentioned features (bookmarks, strip etc.) do not belong to core yet,
Well, that could be argued because bookmark and mq (for strip) are in
the default distribution, it just needs to be explicitly enabled.
> 2) there is no description in the book (most likely because of 1))
True.
>
> By my definition, a feature is mature if it does belong to core, it is
> well documented in the core docs, it provides the required functionality
> and it is bug free. YMMV.
>
> However, I have no doubt that the situation can be improved.
>
> Regarding docs:
>
> I appreciate the Mercurial book and have even provided some fixes for it
> earlier, but as far as I remember it lacks descriptions of the most
> popular extensions except MQ.
>
> On the other hand Git has now some real paper book, e.g. "Pragmatic
> Version Control Using Git", and some real good talks like Scott Chacon's
> <http://www.gitcasts.com/posts/railsconf-git-talk>, general screencasts
> at <http://gitcasts.com>, also there is the 'Git community book'
> <http://book.git-scm.com>, 'Git in a Nutshell'
> <http://www.chem.helsinki.fi/~jonas/git_guides/HTML/git_guide/> and 'Git
> Magic' <http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~blynn/gitmagic/index.html>
> (all work in progress).
>
> I don't know if similar example screencasts are available for Mercurial.
>
>> It is just that with git you are required to understand even the more
>> advanced topics for basic operation. To do these non-basic operations,
>> you need to read and understand a bit more than a basic mercurial
>> tutorial (but not more than you did for git). For a
>> "hey-I-just-wanna-do-what-I-did-with-CVS"-dev, mercurial docs are much
>> easier.
>
> As already said, I prefer Mercurials UI over Git's with the exception of
> this local branch stuff.
>
>> In the end git and mercurial do not have any significant advantages
>> over each other feature wise.
>
> Ok, then let's agree to disagree regarding this point.
>
> You are at Sun, while I am just a community member. It's up to you and
> your colleagues to take a final decision.
>
>> However, I see some advantages for mercurial regarding speed of
>> development, extensibility, customizability and learning curve.
>
> My personal impression looking at mailing lists is that the Git crew is
> larger and more active, than Mercurial's.
>
> Regarding the extensibility, Mercurial has the extension concept though
> I am not aware how powerful it really is and whether base functionality
> of Mercurial can really be totally overridden. With Git you would have
> to apply some patches. In both cases some work with sources has to be
> done which is no real problem for a developer, and applied changes will
> look like core functionality.
>
> While the extension concept is clearer, I have more than once run into
> trouble because the extension suddenly became incompatible with an
> updated core version (of course the same can happen with a Git patch,
> just wanted to point out that having an extension does not mean it will
> work forever).
>
> Regarding learning curve, well there are Git wrappers, like 'Easy Git'
> <http://www.gnome.org/~newren/eg> that remove that burden.
>
>> May I propose that you join the mercurial pilot? It will let you get
>> to know the tool and its a _lot_ less pain than using SVN in every
>> possible way.
>
> I have no objections regarding taking a look at it. Do I need special
> access rights for it?
>
> Although I am no OpenOffice.org developer, I currently have an SVN
> mirror here and based on that a local Git repo that is connected to the
> SVN trunk just for playing around.
>
> BTW: An ideal DVCS in my mind would be a combination of Git's features
> and speed, Mercurial's UI and Bazaars ability to track copies, moves and
> directories.
This just sums it up nicely. I agree absolutely with you here.
Regards,
Heiner
--
Jens-Heiner Rechtien
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
