Hacker News Reader

Comment by jhasse | Hacker News Reader

As long as that way is one of the best - sure why not?

Because it's impossible to be "one of the best" for all usecases.

It's definitely hard, but why should it be impossible? I don't see the fundamental difference between Git and Hg.

Git and Hg is similar, but that is not all there is to the DVCS space. Fossil target a different use case. Darcs have an entirely different underlying structure, which enables different abilities, especially during merging. I find it hard to believe that a single tool can be the best for

  * Huge monorepos and thousands of developers
  * Repos with huge binary files
  * Repos with few developers
  * Personal repos.
  * CD repos
  * Interconnected repos

Even if two different repository technologies are more or less equivalent, some things might be too cumbersome in one but not the other.

Hg actually cared about the user interface. Git didn't.

Would you hold the stance of only one way to do things if that one way turned out to be hg instead of git?

Yes. I wouldn't if it was bzr though.

Yes, of course! See my comment above.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com