On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 00:05, Julian Wiesener <j...@vtoc.de> wrote: > Hi, > > as i stated before, i would like to see an proposal than includes some > details about what problems a toolswitch will solve. I've absolutely no > preference as i used both tools. However, if we do a switch, we should > have good reasons for that.
There is no reason besides "more people want git". Everything that can be done with git can be done with hg. And the two dvcs are such a huge step from cvs/svn that looking from the 10-years old standpoint, there is hardly any difference. But, we are looking from the year 2011. 1) More people know and use git. And it's a fact that hardly needs any proving. The Linux kernel, Glibc, X.org, Gnome and KDE, are all maintained in git. Now the two major hg users I see are mozilla and python. Not puny, but clearly a different weight category. And I wanted to name OpenOffice, but it looks like the developers abandoned it to fork LibreOffice, and guess which vcs they chose.. 2) Some features are not working as well in hg. Local branches require jumping hoops. In git, you are usually branching without a second thought. The 'git remote' equivalents are rather pale. I've heard that hg is easier to use then git, and maybe this was the case in 2005, but git usability has gone a long way since then (I've started using git in 06), and I fail to see how hg is any easier now. It seems noticeably harder for any non-trivial stuff I'm doing in git. It would be nice to hear what's so "easy" in hg that's still hard in modern git. So a big fat +1 to git. > Also we should keep in mind, that we still > want to use our upstreams, and we should have a simple way to keep our > repos in sync with their repos or merge updates. Just check how many upstreams are git, and how many are hg. ;) _______________________________________________ oi-dev mailing list oi-dev@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
