Re: Prefer Mercurial instead of git

[Dov Feldstern]

Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen <at> xemacs.org> writes:

> 
> Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso writes:
> 
>  > Mercurial is a good choice,
> 
> Which is the first thing that *I* wrote about it.  Hm?
> 
>  > despite being less popular than git.
> 
> Still, it's not as good a choice as git, *because* it's less popular
> than git, in particular, among Emacs developers.  You could argue that
> at least three very senior developers (if RMS isn't the third,
> *somebody* will appear  prefer bzr, and might very well prefer hg,
> and that's more important than mere numbers.  I can't refute that
> argument, but I sure can, and do, disagree with the conclusion.
> 
> I have a bunch of further comments on the specifics of Jordi's post,
> but they're off-topic for now, so I'm replying to him directly.
> 
> Interested parties, let one of us know.
> 
> 

I'm interested.

Hats off to Jordi for his masterful job in support of mercurial!

I am not an emacs dev, so I have no real right chiming in here. OTOH, this 
kind of decision being discussed on the public mailing list of a high-
profile project like emacs (high-profile enough to make slashdot, anyway :P 
) probably has an influence that is wider than just emacs, and so I'm 
allowing myself to post this anyway...

I realize that for emacs the choice has all but been made in favor of git, 
and certainly there are plenty of valid reasons for such a decision. But I 
still find it a little sad to see quite a few people here feeling compelled 
to choose git because of its popularity, despite their preference for 
mercurial...

I don't have anything of substance to add to the discussion -- again, I 
think that Jordi has done a wonderful job presenting the merits of 
mercurial. However, since popularity seems to be such an important measure, 
I just wanted to register one more vote in favor of mercurial. :)

Dov