I've never understood the popularity of git. It may be useful for open source by supporting distributed development but it seems far less useful for a traditional corporate environment. SVN just makes far more sense to me in terms of command structure. If I wanted a DVCS I would probably go with Mercurial. Git is just awful.
I, too, was happy with Mercurial and wonder why Git is so popular. I find Git inconsistent and confusing, and it seems to implement the idiom of most-surprise: that is, whatever a command does by default is probably not what you wanted, and the way to do anything you might consider simple is complicated.
The only reason I can come up with Gits popularity over Mercurial is that Linus wrote it. That's about it.
The only reason I can come up with Gits popularity over Mercurial is that Linus wrote it.
You may be partly right. But I think a lot of it is that for a while, Git was a lot more "powerful" -- it supported some very useful modes of operation that Hg either didn't have or wasn't very good at. So while Git was confusing, once you learned the model and commands it did a really good job of rewarding you for it.
This gap has closed substantially, particularly on the Hg side -- a lot of the "missing features" have been implemented either in core Hg or in extensions. At the same time, Git has been doing a reasonably good job at improving usability, though some issues remain.
Then again, I'm a Git user who hasn't worked much with Hg, so take what I said with a strong dose of salt.
My team wanted to use bookmarks instead of HG branches. Sadly our version of Rhodecode did not support them. So we've moved the team to Git and it's actually turning out OK. Yes, different and I miss the simplicity of HG and the lovely logical nature of it. Git feels more inconsistent. But it's doing the job.
One way to make your old car run better is to look up the price of a new model.
April Fools! (Score:1, Troll)
Subversion is really a joke. Gotcha!
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never understood the popularity of git. It may be useful for open source by supporting distributed development but it seems far less useful for a traditional corporate environment. SVN just makes far more sense to me in terms of command structure. If I wanted a DVCS I would probably go with Mercurial. Git is just awful.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The only reason I can come up with Gits popularity over Mercurial is that Linus wrote it. That's about it.
Re:April Fools! (Score:3, Informative)
You may be partly right. But I think a lot of it is that for a while, Git was a lot more "powerful" -- it supported some very useful modes of operation that Hg either didn't have or wasn't very good at. So while Git was confusing, once you learned the model and commands it did a really good job of rewarding you for it.
This gap has closed substantially, particularly on the Hg side -- a lot of the "missing features" have been implemented either in core Hg or in extensions. At the same time, Git has been doing a reasonably good job at improving usability, though some issues remain.
Then again, I'm a Git user who hasn't worked much with Hg, so take what I said with a strong dose of salt.
Re: (Score:2)
My team wanted to use bookmarks instead of HG branches. Sadly our version of Rhodecode did not support them. So we've moved the team to Git and it's actually turning out OK. Yes, different and I miss the simplicity of HG and the lovely logical nature of it. Git feels more inconsistent. But it's doing the job.