re mindshare: I don't understand. Mercurial chose to adopt cvs/svn commands and nomenclature when it made sense. Git chose to reinvent everything. Migrating developers from svn to mercurial should be much easier. re marketplace: Google trends shows. "git" outpaces "mercurial" by roughly 2:1. Although I'd guess that number is somewhat skewed by people using "git-r-done" in their blogs than "mercurial" Does it matter which is more popular? As long as the choice is popular *enough* that it won't vanish. On 03/19/2012 01:17 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
on Mon Mar 19 2012, Sergiu Dotenco<sergiu.dotenco-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
On 19.03.2012 15:02, Daryle Walker wrote:
Git has a competitor called Mercurial? If we're moving to a Distributed-VCS, should we go to Mercurial instead of Git? They're kind-of like CVS vs. Subversion, except I think they came up in parallel. (While Subversion was designed as an updated CVS.) I think Git was made up of a bunch of script hacks, while Mercurial was a regimented single program. I don't have a preference, but I want to make sure we consider the rival options. Daryle W. While we're at it, Google's analysis of Git and Mercurial shouldn't be neglected:
http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/DVCSAnalysis That analysis completely ignores the (most?) important factors, mindshare and marketplace.