From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Sebastian Wiesner Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Prefer Mercurial instead of git Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2014 17:08:40 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1388785952.11337.16.camel@Iris> <3166302.gI3LmCZv1L@descartes> 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 1388851721 24694 80.91.229.3 (4 Jan 2014 16:08:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2014 16:08:41 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "esr@thyrsus.com" , =?UTF-8?Q?Jordi_Guti=C3=A9rrez_Hermoso?= , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: =?UTF-8?Q?R=C3=BCdiger_Sonderfeld?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 04 17:08:47 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 1VzTmI-0002LG-HX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 04 Jan 2014 17:08:46 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54930 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VzTmH-0007Kv-Tk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 04 Jan 2014 11:08:45 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44538) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VzTmE-0007Ko-RS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Jan 2014 11:08:43 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VzTmD-0002yg-Q9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Jan 2014 11:08:42 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-qc0-x231.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400d:c01::231]:42454) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VzTmD-0002yX-Lm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Jan 2014 11:08:41 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-qc0-f177.google.com with SMTP id m20so15813921qcx.36 for ; Sat, 04 Jan 2014 08:08:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jBw9RCIM5Ggzqu4okzhixW6WiBd/VokYkq4Xuf+32Zk=; b=WjkBOxdedwN9mxdIOjJTz+cON3KAyjOSIpmiDsmJ7X6W6+zsaCo3ZghirAjkEXICeW B1ewhq+rl0j5lG3qfe5Tvjb8XQmZ0wJOXrF1kGrRc9BWtR1NJ4H72H56ofNnVW4YnTgt v9gMAQ6EiAeX1zmRLb8Gh3qv1L11u/bE9/yFmNd0kJOgm9EhdNY0+gaH/Ebbc5+kQ0fx Z5SIlwtmi/fXVF2I1TvK2lWWOE7NSDsEFimeDDzJDJLHpdfsyx0DOuUli146ffjrkAEw LAJX2dQjP0t6I8SdSlk3S3bWB/PP5dNr8k7b0qPYA3nNZ+GBfAi2wwNenBEUEpeR5a6k lBgw== X-Received: by 10.224.136.136 with SMTP id r8mr160431998qat.0.1388851720898; Sat, 04 Jan 2014 08:08:40 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.224.207.73 with HTTP; Sat, 4 Jan 2014 08:08:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <3166302.gI3LmCZv1L@descartes> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:400d:c01::231 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:167296 Archived-At: 2014/1/4 R=C3=BCdiger Sonderfeld : > On Friday 03 January 2014 16:52:32 Jordi Guti=C3=A9rrez Hermoso wrote: >> 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. > > The Emacs community is largely using git. I just checked which methods a= re > used for `el-get' packages. By far the largest are git based (git, githu= b) > with more than 61%. The next largest is http (http, http-tar) with ~18%. > Mercurial is used for less than 2% of the packages. > > Many major Emacs packages already use git: Org, Gnus, AUCTeX, ESS, GNU EL= PA, > ... > > As you said the main arguments are social and not technical. And the > community is the major social asset of any free software project. Theref= ore > it seems like a bad idea to switch to anything but git. I think Stefan > already made it clear that it's either git or bzr. > > Regards > R=C3=BCdiger > > Raw data from el-get (2c93601b3c907) > > ((fossil . 1) > (go . 6) > (no-op . 2) > (cvs . 4) > (git-svn . 2) > (builtin . 11) > (ftp . 5) > (emacsmirror . 9) > (bzr . 10) > ("github" . 2) > (svn . 11) > (hg . 17) > (elpa . 24) > (http . 145) > (emacswiki . 89) > (git . 55) > (http-tar . 20) > (github . 518)) > > I didn't count git-svn, emacsmirror for git. And didn't check the vcs us= ed by > packages managed through elpa, go, or other methods. So 62% is a rather = low > estimate. For reference, a little grepping in the recipes of MELPA (http://melpa.milkbox.net/) reveals a similar bias towards Git: $ grep ':fetcher hg' * | wc -l 31 $ grep ':fetcher git' * | grep -v github | wc -l 29 $ grep ':fetcher github' * | wc -l 1186