Moving to Hg without any analysis at all

[Christopher Forsythe]

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:15 PM, Felipe Contreras <
felipe.contreras at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/
>
>
No, there's no simple table like in the adium wiki page. I mean that
specifically, with discussion below perhaps.



> 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.
>
>
I do have git for work, and I use branches and remote repos. I still don't
like the error messages.


> --
> Felipe Contreras
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://pidgin.im/pipermail/devel/attachments/20110207/744b076e/attachment.html>