I don't necessarily doubt git can do the same stuff as mercurial,
but it seems to take way more effort to do anything in git.
Part of this is because git has so many ways to do everything. One
can actually understand all of mercurial fairly quickly. The default
command set includes no destructive commands, but still provides
everything you need for day-to-day work. The extensions provide
advanced functionality incrementally without a lot of redundancy.
Part of the reason may just be that the complication has led people
to use it without understanding it. I'm a little annoyed that my
contributions to a project using git ended up without my name on
them. That's actually harder to do in mercurial since import would
apply the patch as if it were pulled. Of course, it could have been
intentional.
Part of it is the way the tools don't seem to get along. gitweb is
the worst offender here. I got my olpc xo and found they had all
their code in a git repo. The wiki pointed me to it and I could see
tons of projects, recent checkins, and all that. What I could not do
was clone one. Apparently I need a different URL for that, not
provided by gitweb (though I've seen it on some projects). In hg,
when you can see the tree history, you can clone it efficiently. I
don't need a special server because the native protocol is http and
the server is a cgi or fastcgi or mod_python thing that is as good for
hg as it is for humans.
In the end it sounds like mostly all just care that it's not svn as
it has no redeeming qualities. I am advocating mercurial more because
I think it's easier for humans to understand.
I do need to spend some time looking over dormando's response and
see if it clears up issues I'm having.
--
Dustin Sallings (mobile)
On Feb 9, 2008, at 9:15, "Tobias Lütke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Git does have that same capability. I have seen a lot of initial
support for mercurial but i'm seeing a increased amount of mercurial
-> git movement in the last months as well. Git now ships with a
hg2git converter in its contrib directory for this reason.
On Feb 9, 2008 11:16 AM, Brian Aker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi!
On Feb 9, 2008, at 12:28 AM, dormando wrote:
Mercurial does appear to work better with pushing things around,
while
git is primarily pull oriented. I don't mind the loss there, pushing
between distributed repos is kinda crazy. Or maybe I just haven't
used
hg enough.
This is what is really working well for me with Mercurial. I dropped
hgweb into a directory and then as I want to add users I just update
an htpasswd generated file. No fuss what so ever. We all push into
the
same repository. As far as sharing changes go I like that I can
push a
branch into the main repository and share that branch, without any
average committer/puller seeing that (well by default... its not
hidden).
I am sure git has much of this as well though.
Cheers,
-Brian
--
_______________________________________________________
Brian "Krow" Aker, brian at tangent.org
Seattle, Washington
http://krow.net/ <-- Me
http://tangent.org/ <-- Software
http://exploitseattle.com/ <-- Fun
_______________________________________________________
You can't grep a dead tree.
--
Tobi
http://shopify.com - modern e-commerce software
http://typo.leetsoft.com - Open source weblog engine
http://blog.leetsoft.com - Technical weblog
