From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Karl Fogel Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Prefer Mercurial instead of git Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2014 20:14:28 -0600 Message-ID: <87lhyv89a3.fsf@floss.red-bean.com> References: <1388785952.11337.16.camel@Iris> Reply-To: Karl Fogel NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1388888085 17694 80.91.229.3 (5 Jan 2014 02:14:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 02:14:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "esr@thyrsus.com" , Emacs development discussions To: Jordi =?utf-8?Q?=5C1?= Hermoso Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 05 03:14:51 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VzdEp-0007jk-G6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 05 Jan 2014 03:14:51 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56388 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VzdEp-0006lO-1o for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 04 Jan 2014 21:14:51 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38587) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VzdEh-0006lH-Np for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Jan 2014 21:14:49 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VzdEc-0007Xo-4s for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Jan 2014 21:14:43 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-ie0-x234.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4001:c03::234]:45055) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VzdEb-0007Xf-VO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Jan 2014 21:14:38 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-ie0-f180.google.com with SMTP id tp5so17412352ieb.11 for ; Sat, 04 Jan 2014 18:14:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:reply-to:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Rm1wU3aerBzWJ+4sTxmp4sBCjOxRY0m6GlHY+pGYY4Q=; b=s8kWjeC9MEZQX3OroOxbvZEikprxwEYI/kmIeEKprfaeCA8owN3NsvbVbCYeXXx+Wm CKGBzN/P8EaID5OzzJL/55IIX5THNDLDP2LG8mTwXGKi4oKoqjzGEP2eX3XpXYDsGG6r DklTQrweCjEilrrdG5d/YF6vV/w0RHQ66NIXzil9naWedtxsv074gzEMgStDr6GDlRVi a2ebp275ehInAa2zGLJdiYYSxKPlxx72KCm0wlPnu1bGowW6VEI5WdXVNe9dcjwm6KOp wDXu4b1TCfefYiDeIbPMvvyamF71j990eV+Nn2AVDWSxA9V/S6KhiUdtAoKXuTRVJ+Xe oBOw== X-Received: by 10.50.56.38 with SMTP id x6mr11396267igp.31.1388888076821; Sat, 04 Jan 2014 18:14:36 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from floss.red-bean.com (c-98-212-140-226.hsd1.il.comcast.net. [98.212.140.226]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id a1sm8932400igo.0.2014.01.04.18.14.35 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 04 Jan 2014 18:14:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1388785952.11337.16.camel@Iris> ("Jordi =?utf-8?Q?=5C1?= Hermoso"'s message of "Fri, 03 Jan 2014 16:52:32 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4001:c03::234 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:167339 Archived-At: Jordi Guti=C3=A9rrez Hermoso 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.=20=20 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