Moving to Hg without any analysis at all

Christopher Forsythe chris at
Mon Feb 7 23:49:46 EST 2011

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Felipe Contreras <
felipe.contreras at> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 6:05 AM, Evan Schoenberg, M.D.
> <evan.s at> wrote:
> >
> > On Feb 7, 2011, at 9:57 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >
> >> What you are basically saying is: monotone the tool we know, and we
> >> are comfortable with
> >
> > This is a perfectly good reason, by itself, when combined with "and
> monotone can do the job we want it to do."  Time is our most precious asset.
> Ah, some honesty. That's all I'm saying; if you don't want to do a
> careful analysis, fine, just say so. If mercurial turns out not to be
> the best choice, don't claim you did a careful analysis, because there
> isn't any.
> And yeah, that's a perfectly good reason... for a weekend project. I
> still maintain that the last analysis (that resulted in monotone
> chosen as the tool) was not done correctly (the main argument was the
> big space, and nobody bothered to ask how to reduce it; git-repack),
> and back at that time people said that before choosing another tool, a
> careful analysis would need to be done, so that the right tool is
> picked. I guess talk is cheap.

Adium did do an analysis like you are suggesting, back in 2009 they switched
to mercurial

I do not believe that the pidgin guys will change their minds at this point.
However, I do think that you could aleviate Evan's point here Felipe. You
(or someone else) could maintain a very in depth list of pros and cons of
all currently popular version systems. I believe the best way to do this
would be to remain objective, and be pedantic. If an in depth analysis
existed like this now, I believe what you are arguing for would not be an
issue. There are new things to bring up, such as the hg-git command to
access git repos, and conversion problems that could all be well documented.
Plus for extra credit a beginner's guide to each version control system,
with examples of how to do each thing and also a separate document
explaining differences in the version control system, would really make this
decision for *every single oss project out there*.

That all said, I vote for mercurial (as if my vote matters). I hate git
error messages when I get them (no need to reply to this point, my opinion
won't change here).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Devel mailing list