On Sun, 2016-01-10 at 23:12 +0300, anatoly techtonik wrote: > I am 1 of 2 people out of 11 who still prefer Mercurial. OMG. =) > > I wonder why Mercurial is considered bad. Is it just a poor user > experience with BitBucket or there is something more in it?
There is a lot about Mercurial (and Bazaar) that I like, especially command lines, etc. Despite years of improvement, the Git command line still seems something like a Perl script designed to replicate line noise. However for me, the Git wins are explicit remote tracking branches, so that you can see things in gitg, and the transitory nature of feature branches. I think I am echoing Bill here, but the fact that branch identifiers are immutable in Mercurial means that Bazaar wins. And Bazaar effectively got killed off when Canonical pulled the finance. I still use Mercurial somewhat for personal projects, but these are default branch only repositories. Much as I really dislike Git in so many ways, it is a better tool for serendipitous, feature branch based, multi-repository working. As for the GitHub vs BitBucket thing: now that BitBucket has switched to being a Git resource rather than a Mercurial resource, it is purely down to whether BitBucket pull requests system is better or worse than the GitHub one, and most importantly whether being on BitBucket or GitHub is better for marketing. Apart from not working on Python 3.4+ as well as Python 2.7, SCons biggest problem is marketing. As for issues, I'm afraid I've stopped even looking at Tigris. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:[email protected] 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
