git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: Mercurial vs Updated git HOWTO for kernel hackers

From
Sean <seanlkml@sympatico.ca>
Date
Jun 29, 2005, 00:25 UTC
Message-ID
<2661.10.10.10.24.1120004702.squirrel@linux1>
In-Reply-To
<40A4071C-ED45-4280-928F-BCFC8761F47E@mac.com>
On Tue, June 28, 2005 8:08 pm, Kyle Moffett said:
> Firstly, no need to shout, we can all hear you :-D.
ok
Show 9 quoted lines
>
> Git and Mercurial have all of the same core functionality.  The only
> significant remaining difference is that Mercurial uses 1/20th the
> network bandwidth and disk space.  If you happen to be interested in
> that advantage (as I am, due to my aging equipment and poor internet
> connection), then there are two options: (1) fix git, or (2) just use
> Mercurial.  From my point of view, option 2 is much more productive.
> You may (and probably do) have different priorities and requirements
> than I do, but in my view, Mercurial is an excellent tool.

well the feature set for both are changing rapidly. i like the emphasis placed on functionality over performance shown by the git developers (not that git is slow, it's _way_ faster than bk ever was). also the web interface that i looked at for mecurial (admittedly four or fivve weeks back) didn't come close to gitweb. and the work done by jon seymour and others on the history lineralization is just great. it's something bk lacked and was always a thorn in my side.

Show 5 quoted lines
> Actually, Mercurial solved some of the problems first, before git did;
> distributed merge is one example that comes to mind.  In any case, I'm
> not trying to tell you what to use, I'm just pointing out alternatives
> that are available and explaining why I like them, in case you haven't
> seen them or tried them before.

there will be a price to pay if the linux community fragments over choice of scm. the good news is that we're no longer locked into the whims of some proprietary system. so it should be straight forward for those who choose any tool to work with those who've chosen another. this is already evidenced by the fact that the git repository is pulled and re-exeported with mecurial.

anyway, all the best, just wish you guys would spend less time trying to convert git users and more time advancing your own tool.

sean
Previous: Kyle MoffettNext: Kyle Moffett
Message 62 of 94 in “Updated git HOWTO for kernel hackers”
  1. Jeff GarzikJun 22, 2005
  2. Dave JonesJun 22, 2005
  3. Jeff GarzikJun 22, 2005
  4. Dave JonesJun 22, 2005
  5. Jeff GarzikJun 23, 2005
  6. Jeff GarzikJun 25, 2005
  7. Dave JonesJun 25, 2005
  8. Greg KHJun 22, 2005
  9. Linus TorvaldsJun 22, 2005
  10. Jeff GarzikJun 23, 2005
  11. Linus TorvaldsJun 23, 2005
  12. Jeff GarzikJun 23, 2005
  13. Linus TorvaldsJun 23, 2005
  14. Jeff GarzikJun 23, 2005
  15. Linus TorvaldsJun 23, 2005
  16. Jeff GarzikJun 23, 2005
  17. Linus TorvaldsJun 23, 2005
  18. Jeff GarzikJun 23, 2005
  19. Linus TorvaldsJun 23, 2005
  20. Greg KHJun 23, 2005
  21. Linus TorvaldsJun 23, 2005
  22. Greg KHJun 23, 2005
  23. Jeff GarzikJun 23, 2005
  24. Petr BaudisJun 23, 2005
  25. Martin LanghoffJun 23, 2005
  26. Vojtech PavlikJun 23, 2005
  27. Linus TorvaldsJun 22, 2005
  28. Jeff GarzikJun 23, 2005
  29. Linus TorvaldsJun 23, 2005
  30. Jeff GarzikJun 23, 2005
  31. Linus TorvaldsJun 23, 2005
  32. Linus TorvaldsJun 23, 2005
  33. Jeff GarzikJun 23, 2005
  34. Linus TorvaldsJun 23, 2005
  35. Adam KropelinJun 23, 2005
  36. Linus TorvaldsJun 23, 2005
  37. Jeff GarzikJun 23, 2005
  38. Linus TorvaldsJun 23, 2005
  39. Miles BaderJun 23, 2005
  40. Jeff GarzikJun 23, 2005
  41. Linus TorvaldsJun 23, 2005
  42. Anton AltaparmakovJun 23, 2005
  43. Daniel BarkalowJun 23, 2005
  44. Dave AirlieJun 23, 2005
  45. Mercurial vs Updated git HOWTO for kernel hackersMatt Mackall, Jun 23, 2005
  46. Petr BaudisJun 24, 2005
  47. Christopher LiJun 24, 2005
  48. Petr BaudisJun 28, 2005
  49. Andrew ThompsonJun 28, 2005
  50. Petr BaudisJun 28, 2005
  51. Matt MackallJun 28, 2005
  52. Kyle MoffettJun 28, 2005
  53. SeanJun 28, 2005
  54. Matt MackallJun 28, 2005
  55. SeanJun 28, 2005
  56. Kyle MoffettJun 28, 2005
  57. Matt MackallJun 28, 2005
  58. SeanJun 28, 2005
  59. Kyle MoffettJun 28, 2005
  60. SeanJun 28, 2005
  61. Kyle MoffettJun 29, 2005
  62. SeanJun 29, 2005
  63. Kyle MoffettJun 29, 2005
  64. Vojtech PavlikJun 29, 2005
  65. Matt MackallJun 28, 2005
  66. Thomas Arendsen HeinJun 29, 2005
  67. Andrea ArcangeliJun 24, 2005
  68. Theodore Ts'oJun 24, 2005
  69. Paolo CiarrocchiJun 24, 2005
  70. Christopher LiJun 24, 2005
  71. Kevin SmithJun 24, 2005
  72. Matt MackallJun 24, 2005
  73. Petr BaudisJun 28, 2005
  74. Sven VerdoolaegeJun 28, 2005
  75. Petr BaudisJun 28, 2005
  76. Cygwin and Native MS Windows (was: Mercurial vs Updated git HOWTO for kernel hackers)Kevin Smith, Jun 28, 2005
  77. Cogito vs. Git (was: Mercurial vs Updated git HOWTO for kernel hackers)Kevin Smith, Jun 28, 2005
  78. Petr BaudisJun 28, 2005
  79. Matthias UrlichsJun 24, 2005
  80. Linus TorvaldsJun 24, 2005
  81. John W. LinvilleJun 24, 2005
  82. Jeff GarzikJun 24, 2005
  83. Daniel BarkalowJun 24, 2005
  84. Should "git-read-tree -m -u" delete files?Junio C Hamano, Jun 24, 2005
  85. Joel BeckerJun 24, 2005
  86. Kyle MoffettJun 24, 2005
  87. Pavel MachekJun 27, 2005
  88. Kyle MoffettJun 27, 2005
  89. Matt MackallJun 27, 2005
  90. Benjamin LaHaiseJun 27, 2005
  91. Matt MackallJun 27, 2005
  92. Ed TomlinsonJun 27, 2005
  93. Amin AzezJul 8, 2005
  94. Amin AzezJul 11, 2005

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.