on Mon Mar 19 2012, Bryce Lelbach <blelbach-AT-cct.lsu.edu> wrote:
On 2012.03.19 13.17, 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:
That analysis completely ignores the (most?) important factors, mindshare and marketplace.
Uh, can you provide some data for this, please?
Data? All you have to do is read the article to see that it ignores those factors.
The two major surveys I know contradict this.
http://www.eclipse.org/org/community_survey/Eclipse_Survey_2011_Report.pdf, page 16 http://blogs.forrester.com/application_development/2010/01/forrester-databyt...
Contradict what? -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com