Moving to Hg without any analysis at all

[Felipe Contreras]

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Zachary West <zacwest at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ad populum choices aren't always the right ones, for sure, but it
> might be worth the hard look to see whether or not Git's popularity is
> a more convincing reason to go with it over Mercurial, all other
> things being equal.

Indeed. The interesting question would be: why is git more popular
than mercurial? I know pretty well why. I would have expected an
analysis document stating why despite that fact, Pidgin developers
have chosen hg over it. So far, I haven't heard any compelling reason.

> That being said, I don't think it makes much of a difference which you
> go with. The end goal is fine with both of them: you have a faster,
> easier-to-use DVCS that likely will promote more people grabbing it. I
> just hope Mercurial doesn't end up being like Monotone in a few years
> and this conversation has to start all over again, for all of us.

To be fair, I think mercurial is a fantastic choice compared to
monotone (and over SVN), and I doubt it would turn out to be another
monotone. However, I feel confident that year after year git would
become more and more popular, and mercurial user-base would have to
decrease as a result, not because mercurial is bad, but because git is
so much better than anything else. A few years from now I think it
would be obvious that git would have been a better choice, but how
much would this choice hurt is impossible to say, probably not that
much.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras