* On 06 Apr 2016, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > However, there are some strong arguments for not changing. Our > infrastructure and workflows are working quite nicely (thanks Brendan!), > and I'm not anxious to redo them all. Mercurial is easy to use, and I'm > skeptical it's *that* hard for anyone who's used git to pick up the > basics. (Going the other way isn't quite as easy, imo). Our history, > tickets, and changelog entries often reference mercurial changesets, > which would be a loss (not insurmountable, I know). Also, Mercurial is > still under active development. > > If the pluses and minuses started to weigh heavily against Mercurial, > I'd be open to the discussion, but I don't think we're there just yet. > For now I'd suggest keeping focused on maintaining and increasing the > project momentum.
I agree completely. Personally I deeply dislike git, but I have to use it virtually everywhere except with Mutt (and my personal projects), so I could live with it. However, I still find it much easier to use than git, and I think it's very easy for a git user to adopt. -- David Champion • [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
