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

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

On 10/26/08, Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab@web.de> wrote:
> Am Sonntag 26 Oktober 2008 19:55:09 schrieb Jakub Narebski:
>
> > > * 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.
>  >
>  > The competing _distributed_ version control systems left seems to be
>  > Bazaar-NG (Ubuntu), Mercurial (OpenSolaris, Mozilla), Git (Linux kernel,
>  > Freedesktop.org, Ruby on Rails people).  There are many IDEs, many
>  > editors, many web browsers; there is Linux and there are *BSD; I hope
>  > that Mercurial would continue to be developed, and not vanish in
>  > obscurity like Arch and clones...
>
>
> Before we get tangled in this train of thought:
>
>  I created a head-to-head code_swarm of Mercurial and Git and it clearly shows
>  that Mercurial development didn't slow down.
>

I am not familiar with code swarms, sorry. My impressions are
subjective are thoroughly un-scientific:-)
(1) Judging by the activity of mailing lists git community is several
times larger and more active in terms of actual submitted patches.
(2) Hg forest extension is still not in the tree with outdated and
incorrect documentation in the wiki. For me it was biggest reason to
migrate from Hg to git.

--Leo--