Re: preferring mercurial

["François Orieux" <orieux@iap.fr>]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:

> François Orieux writes:
>
>> My resume of all the posts I have read is that git and hg are
>> technically equivalent.
>
> [...] but git exposes a much cleaner interface to the internal model
> of blobs (file content), trees (file directories), and commits *to the
> user*.
>
> [...] I don't know about Mercurial, haven't looked at its internals.

I don't know to, but you can't say "git is better" and say after you
don't know about hg.

>> Hg is cleaner, easier with better doc and ui
>
> I disagree, but again it's a matter of taste.

By using both, we can't really say it's a matter of taste. By reading
doc we can't to. Or by reading all these pages on internet, like

http://stevelosh.com/blog/2013/04/git-koans/

>> with a bigger respect of history.
>
> That is a lie, and you should stop repeating it, and tell people who
> try to tell it to you to stop, too.
>
> Nothing has more respect for history than git.  Using git, you can
> forget history (by deleting or moving refs) but you can't change it or
> delete it.[1] [...]

Ok I didn't know that point and I will stop.

Git is excellent and a good choice for emacs. But by taking into account
all the pro and cons of both tools, we must admit that the sole thing
that really remains is that git is popular: git is chosen because
"everybody" chose this tool. Why not afterall.

--
IAP, CNRS-UPMC - Paris, France
+33 1 73 77 55 11
http://research.orieux.fr