Moving to Hg without any analysis at all

[Felipe Contreras]

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 6:49 AM, Christopher Forsythe <chris at growl.info> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Felipe Contreras
> <felipe.contreras at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 6:05 AM, Evan Schoenberg, M.D.
>> <evan.s at dreskin.net> 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
> http://trac.adium.im/wiki/DistributedVersionControl

Yes, that's what I'm talking about, but if you see closely, there's no
disadvantage of using git. The only one listed is that revision
numbers are unfriendly, but the "friendly" ones of mercurial are bogus
(only local), plus you hardly ever need to use them.

> 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.

You mean like this?
http://felipec.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/mercurial-vs-git-its-all-in-the-branches/

The link to the detailed comparison is 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).

Of course not, you would need to use branches and remote repos to see
what you are missing. See my blog post.

-- 
Felipe Contreras