Re:Fossil: A decentralized version control, bug tracking, an...
by hvidgaard on Monday October 10, 2016 @03:03AM
(#12675535)
I've used git and mercurial extensively, but only with git have we regularly had the need to summon The Expert. With git I have to tell new users "don't use a flag or setting if you think you know what it does, look it up". That has not been needed for mercurial.
One particular good feature is the concept of a commit phase. It makes is crystal clear when rewriting history is allowed, and more importantly, when it isn't.
Re:Fossil: A decentralized version control, bug tracking, an...
by em3rgent0rdr on Sunday October 09, 2016 @10:40PM
(#12674700)
"how can you tell that git is no good, if it is the best of the tools available?"
Because the UI is complicated & confusing for new users, making it easy to dig yourself a hole.
Re:Fossil: A decentralized version control, bug tracking, an...
by icebraining on Monday October 10, 2016 @10:00AM
(#12677115)
It's also inconsistent; "git branch -d" vs "git submodule remove" vs "git tag --delete".
Re:Fossil: A decentralized version control, bug tracking, an...
by MustardTiger on Sunday October 09, 2016 @10:50PM
(#12674732)
It isn't the best, you just like it best. Lots of people do not agree. I also used darcs and mercurial. I still do use darcs, and have essentially stopped participating in most open source projects because I find git so unpleasant to try to use.
Re:Fossil: A decentralized version control, bug tracking, an...
by jack9 on Sunday October 09, 2016 @08:41PM
(#12674375)
> subversion later was a constant struggle
The only struggle about svn is branching (copy the whole thing) and merging was more frequent. There were many CVS systems, which I worked on, where there was no way to track who made what change in a day.
Re:Fossil: A decentralized version control, bug tracking, an...
by lucideer on Sunday October 09, 2016 @08:47PM
(#12674400)
You switched from using "was" in your first paragraph to "is" in your second. There are certainly more competitors to Git today than there were then.
Re:Fossil: A decentralized version control, bug tracking, an...
by isxek on Monday October 10, 2016 @12:08AM
(#12674982)
Are there really more? Some similar projects like Monotone and Bazaar are no longer being actively/regularly developed IIRC, and the number of hosting services for something as well-known as Mercurial has been dwindling.
Re:Fossil: A decentralized version control, bug tracking, an...
by merijnv on Monday October 10, 2016 @04:48AM
(#12675892)
Because, I'm guessing, a lot of people using Mercurial (like me) are just using GitHub. Mercurial has had a functional bidirectional git-mercurial bridge extension for over half a decade and I've never ran into issues with it.
The result is that I happily keep using Mercurial locally even when collaborating with people using Git. I don't see the need to have Mercurial specific hosting. (Well, until Bitbucket finally starts working with obsolence markers so I can use Changeset Evolution).
So, how can you tell that git is no good, if it is the best of the tools available?