Saying that mercurial belongs to the past and is an older generation tool than git is rather ridiculous. Git is used more widely than mercurial, mainly due to Linux kernel and github. But from a technical perspective, mercurial is designed far more elegantly and much easier to use than git, without any compromise in functionality.
+1 for keeping vim on mercurial On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Andre Sihera <[email protected]> wrote: > On 13/03/15 03:41, LCD 47 wrote: > >> On 12 March 2015, Taro MURAOKA<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> > It is not difficult to migrate/sync the repository from mercurial to >>> git. >>> > > We (vim-jp) have been maintaining a mirror on github already. >>> > > https://github.com/vim-jp/vim >>> >> Please, don't start this again. Search the archives for the >> previous Git vs. Mercurial pissing contests, and for why neither >> actually matters.:) >> >> /lcd >> > Seriously, is using that kind of flippant and arrogant remark the best > argument > you can come up with? Contempt for one of the many legions of dedicated > foreign > volunteers who keep Vim maintained and encourage its use by their local > communities > is not welcome. > > *** > > You may not like the fact, but it is a fact: Mercurial was the system > chosen by > a *previous* generation of Vim developers. While it has served the project > well > in the past, such tools represent neither the present nor the *future* > because > newer generations simply embrace what they know and what is relevant to > their > time (like Mercurial was to the generation that chose it). Be it C# > compared to > C, the MP3 instead of the CD (or vinyl record), whatever. > > In order to attract new generations of developers, and the ideas and > talent that > comes with them, we *must* move with the tools and times of those > developers. > Otherwise Vim will die along with the dedicated team of people that > currently > maintain it. More importantly, Vim won't expand in order to protect its > own future. > > If Mercurial can be used reliably and, in as much as is possible, > transparently, > within local repositories while git is used as the server, that represents > the > best solution does it not? Those who prefer Mercurial can continue to use > it; new > developers who *only* know git will be attracted to us, and those in the > middle > will now have a choice whether to migrate their Mercurial skills to git or > not. A > win for most people don't you think? > > Whether we like it or not, git is the present, and also the foreseeable > future. > Change, as we all know, is hard enough to embrace at the best of times. So > to not > grasp a "less painful" opportunity such as this to update our core > infrastructure > and thus attract a new generation of developers and ideas I think would be > the > equivalent of killing Vim's future before the fact. > > > -- > -- > You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. > Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. > For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php > > --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "vim_dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
