Thanks. There will be many more accidents from me if Atlassian remove Mercurial support from Sourcetree, as seems likely. (They are the parent company.)
Larry On 23 Aug 2019, at 08:09, Lars Hupel <[email protected]> wrote: >> What are the objective reasons for us to stick with Mercurial? What >> are its real benefits over Git? > > I obviously can't speak about Makarius' personal taste, but as far as I have > observed, the criticism of Git wrt Mercurial usually falls into two classes: > > 1) more complex UI; i.e. it is easier to produce "Git accidents" than > "Mercurial accidents" > 2) the cultural emphasis on rewriting history as opposed to Mercurial's > approach of monotonic changes > > Both of them have been (and continue to) losing their truth over the years: > > 1) From observing Mercurial and Git users alike, I don't see a large > difference of "accidents per action" (this is completely subjective of > course). As a power user, the criticism gets inverted: it is much easier to > recover from Git accidents than from Mercurial accidents. > 2) Git users have largely been moving away from this, at least concerning > mainline development, to the extent that most productive Git repositories > reject non-monotonic changes. Ironically, none of our Mercurial repositories > in the Isabelle ecosystem do that. Also, the Mercurial developers have in the > past produced several extensions that try to provide a way to evolve private > changesets. > > There are various other technical points about learning curve, performance > etc., but the fact remains that for most use cases, Git and Mercurial are > extensionally equivalent. > > Cheers > Lars _______________________________________________ isabelle-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mailman46.in.tum.de/mailman/listinfo/isabelle-dev
