Re: Prefer Mercurial instead of git

[Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com>]

Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <jordigh@octave.org> writes:
>Please CC me in replies as I am not subscribed to this list.
>
>I know a majority opinion lies with git due to various cultural
>factors. I would, however, want to make a case for Mercurial being a
>better choice for a GNU package.

Heh.  I started the original thread largely in order to take exactly
this poll in one thread -- that's why I included this line:

>Does anyone think we should stay on bzr, or choose a VCS other than git?

However, that thread has grown to contain at least one large side
discussion, and now we have a new thread that polls separately about
Mercurial.  I suppose this was inevitable :-).

Anyway: I strongly favor Emacs choosing Git over Mercurcial.  

I've used both systems, and don't find much practical difference between
them in most development situations.  Their own maintenance communities
seem roughly equally healthy at this moment in time.  I prefer Git
simply because it is winning the popularity war, which means that:

  - When one searches the Web for help on a Git question, one is more
    likely to find the answer quickly.

  - When one seeks help directly from a person, that person is more
    likely to be a) available and b) able to answer.

  - Git is likely to be solidly maintained for decades into the future.
    I do not have quite the same faith for Mercurial, though it does
    look like it will be okay for at least a decade or so.

  - More people are developing tools to work with Git than with
    Mercurial.  (Call it the "library" advantage, by analogy with
    programming languages.)

  - Skills I develop in Git can be reinvested in more other places than
    skills I learn in Mercurial can be.

I don't see any really major technical reason to prefer either system;
my argument is just a standard positive feedback loop argument.

I'll happily use either, but if you're asking for votes, Git gets mine.

-K