Re: [VOTE] git versus mercurial (for DragonflyBSD)

["Leo Razoumov" <slonik.az@gmail.com>]

On 10/26/08, Maxim Vuets <maxim.vuets@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2008 15:15:57 +0100, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > 1. Documentation and ease of use.
>  >
>  >    Mercurial is supposedly better documented and easier to use; I
>  >    think this descends from the early days of Git, where it was not
>  >    very user friendly. IMHO Git has much improved since.  Mercurial
>  >    had 'hgbook' from the beginning; Git User's Manual is more recent.
>
>
> Also, there is http://book.git-scm.com/ that is similar to hgbook, I think.
>
>  Thanks for the comprarision!

I have been using Mercurial for about two years and am very
comfortable with it.  Here are some cons and pros

Mercurial PROS:
* Easier and more consistent UI. Newbie friendly.
* Better documentation. IMHO, hgbook is by far better than
http://book.git-scm.com/
* Windows support (personally, I do not care)

Mercurial CONS:
* Less potential than git. Once Ted Tso even said that "git has more
legs than mercurial", see
http://thunk.org/tytso/blog/2007/03/24/git-and-hg/
* Hg is strictly an SCM system while GIT is a content addressable file
system that can be used in other ways, hence the name Global
Information Tracker (GIT)
* Recently, Hg development seems to have somewhat slowed down. To
simply put it, there is not enough room in the world for several
similar SCM systems. With git's pace and momentum the other SCMs
including Hg are fighting an uphill battle.

Just my two cents.
--Leo--