[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Mercurial vs. git

From: Michal Suchanek
Subject: Re: Mercurial vs. git
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 15:27:10 +0100


This discussion is quite interesting.

I would say that the major problem with git is it does not come with
enough documentation.

If you want to use mercurial you just type hg help, and what you get
is comprehensive enough to allow you to clone a repo, add your
changes, and publish your patch.

If you want to do the same in git you have to STFW for git guides that
give you recipes for this.

On the other hand, once you do read a decent git recipe with comments
on the git background you are ready to experiment a bit, create a few
branches, move commits around, etc.

When you are not interested in features that use the index you can
just use commit -a, you don't need the different diff options then.

You can always write recipes (or even scripts) that run a series of
git core commands with preset arguments, and customize them to fit
your project and your DAUs.

But yes, it's an additional work partially solved by using another
VCS. And it could be saved by shipping some premade scripts and/or
more documentation with git.

In the end I like git better, though. There are fewer things that
don't work for me with git, and more things that do.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]