[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Prefer Mercurial instead of git

From: Rüdiger Sonderfeld
Subject: Re: Prefer Mercurial instead of git
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2014 15:12:11 +0100
User-agent: KMail/4.11.3 (Linux/3.11.0-14-generic; KDE/4.11.3; x86_64; ; )

On Friday 03 January 2014 16:52:32 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> I know a majority opinion lies with git due to various cultural
> factors. I would, however, want to make a case for Mercurial being a
> better choice for a GNU package.

The Emacs community is largely using git.  I just checked which methods are 
used for `el-get' packages.  By far the largest are git based (git, github) 
with more than 61%.  The next largest is http (http, http-tar) with ~18%.  
Mercurial is used for less than 2% of the packages.

Many major Emacs packages already use git: Org, Gnus, AUCTeX, ESS, GNU ELPA, 

As you said the main arguments are social and not technical.  And the 
community is the major social asset of any free software project.  Therefore 
it seems like a bad idea to switch to anything but git.  I think Stefan 
already made it clear that it's either git or bzr.


Raw data from el-get (2c93601b3c907)

((fossil . 1)
 (go . 6)
 (no-op . 2)
 (cvs . 4)
 (git-svn . 2)
 (builtin . 11)
 (ftp . 5)
 (emacsmirror . 9)
 (bzr . 10)
 ("github" . 2)
 (svn . 11)
 (hg . 17)
 (elpa . 24)
 (http . 145)
 (emacswiki . 89)
 (git . 55)
 (http-tar . 20)
 (github . 518))

I didn't count git-svn, emacsmirror for git.  And didn't check the vcs used by 
packages managed through elpa, go, or other methods.  So 62% is a rather low 

reply via email to

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