Re: Prefer Mercurial instead of git

["Óscar Fuentes" <ofv@wanadoo.es>]

Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <jordigh@octave.org> writes:

> On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 16:38 +0100, Óscar Fuentes wrote:
>> Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <jordigh@octave.org> writes:
>> 
>> > We could adapt magit to use hg exactly the same way.
>> 
>> Why do you insist on mentioning Magit?
>
> Because it's frequently loved and other people mention it as an
> advantage to using git with Emacs.

So you are mentioning *current* Emacs/git productivity tools as a bait
for fishing *git users* and gaining them for the hg cause because those
tools *could* be adapted to hg?

>>  Its interface is modeled on git's characteristic features (index,
>
> hg queues
>
>> remotes,
>
> hg paths
>
>> etc)
>
> hg etc

No, thanks, I prefer the real thing.

>> Adapting it for hg would require a huge rewrite. You'll better write
>> your own package from scratch.
>
> I spoke with Sigma a while ago in #emacs (he was or is a big magit
> contributor, I can't recall his actual name), and he think it's
> feasible to abstract away the git part of magit and use it as an
> interface for git and hg.

Sure, and with a bit more of work it could be adapted to RCS too :-)

If you would be happy working with a hg-based Magit, why should you
object to working with a git-based Magit, once Emacs switches to git?

> Magit would hardly be the first of its kind
> to abstract away git and hg. Kiln Harmony has also done this, as has,
> for example, Phabricator.
>
>> Do you have Magit-envy? ;-)
>
> Not really. I'm trying to appeal to git Emacs users.

Have you considered the possibility that those users could be so
attached to git/Emacs as you can be to hg/Emacs? As git does the work
for me, why should I invest time on learning another tool that adds
*nothing* to my productivity?

But the issue here, as others already told you several times, is not
about which tool is best from the technical POV (both hg and git are
good enough, each with its own strong and weak points) but about
choosing the most popular and future-proof option. From this POV, going
with hg would be repeating the bzr mistake (well, not as bad, but a
mistake anyways.)