[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: preferring mercurial
From: |
François Orieux |
Subject: |
Re: preferring mercurial |
Date: |
Thu, 09 Jan 2014 15:49:28 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Notmuch/0.16 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.3.50.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) |
Rüdiger Sonderfeld <address@hidden> writes:
>This has all been discussed here:
>https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg00238.html
As a programmer of scientific algorithm for data processing, I choose hg
when I have the choice and git when I haven't the choice. But I am just
a user of hg, git and emacs.
My resume of all the posts I have read is that git and hg are
technically equivalent. Hg is cleaner, easier with better doc and ui
with a bigger respect of history.
And git is popular... But if they are technically equivalent, then git
is not popular for technical reasons. So why git is more popular if it
is not for technical reasons, neither for it's doc, it's ui or whatever
you want ?
The second good point for git I have see is that developer will not have
to learn another tools. With such argument I'm asking myself why I have
learn emacs, python and numpy... Finnally there is magit and I must
admit that magit make me use git with less anxiety about my work :)
Regards, François
--
IAP, CNRS-UPMC - Paris, France
+33 1 73 77 55 11
http://research.orieux.fr
- preferring mercurial, Neal Becker, 2014/01/09
- Re: preferring mercurial, Tim Visher, 2014/01/09
- Re: preferring mercurial, Rüdiger Sonderfeld, 2014/01/09
- Re: preferring mercurial,
François Orieux <=
- Re: preferring mercurial, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/01/10
- Re: preferring mercurial, Stefan Monnier, 2014/01/10
- Re: preferring mercurial, Eric S. Raymond, 2014/01/10
- Re: preferring mercurial, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2014/01/10
- Re: preferring mercurial, Eric S. Raymond, 2014/01/10
- Re: preferring mercurial, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2014/01/10