Git vs. Mercurial | Hacker News Reader

Git vs. Mercurial

gitvsmercurial.com

28 pointspjdavis22 comments

HOW FUCKING CREATIVE! Look, I can cuss, too! Woooo!

(Don't tell my Mom)

How about somebody with some god damn knowledge and care takes that meaningful domain and actually provides a concise point-by-point difference between Git and Mercurial? Maybe even a feature-comparison table? That might actually be fucking useful.

This isn't clever. By voting it up instead of flagging it you're only proving you are also not clever.

A more serious problem is the expression of a sentiment I think few of us here share:

"...not what someone on the internet tells you to."

Really? Is it really so bad or so unreliable to read what someone on the "internet" said? In fact, I think you'd find little in print that is up to date focusing specifically on a comparison of gitvsmecurial, and what's out there doesn't have comments replying to the most obvious weak points or updating with new information. A good, up to date, reasoned argument online from a reputable blogger-hacker? Reading someone else's argumentation isn't just about blindly listening to someone else; they may bring up new information or new points that you hadn't thought about.

And why does this sound like something a curmudgeonly old book editor might be saying about blogs and the Internet rather than a hacker working with the latest distributed version control tools?

Yeah, I didn't really touch on that part, but you're completely right. The only reason the Internet can be less reliable than other sources is because it lowers the barriers which usually keep stupid people from voicing their opinions to large audiences. That's it. We, the Internet, still have lots of smart, knowledgeable folks!

And, yes, given the new and evolving nature of Git and Mercurial, if I'm not going to listen to someone on the Internet, I'm pretty much stuck listening to my Mom. And she still uses AOL email.

That, honestly, is a great idea. I shall add that in the next few hours or so. Thanks.

I wasn't aware someone on HN made this or I might have been slightly less abrasive (okay, probably not), but I'm glad that you took the constructive (albeit rough) criticism :)

I love what Guido had to say about this when choosing a DCVS for Python:

It's hard to explain my reasons for choosing -- like most language decisions (especially the difficult ones) it's mostly a matter of gut feelings. One thing I know is that it's better to decide now than to spend another year discussing the pros and cons.

http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-March/08793...

> "Use what YOU like, not what someone on the internet tells you to."

This supposes that (1) you already have a preference, and (2) your choice only affects you (that is, you aren't working on a project that involves other contributors).

I was hoping I was about to read a comparison similar to http://whygitisbetterthanx.com/ (which is concise and intelligent, even with its inherent bias).

This could probably be generalised to "techthingvstechthing.com".

http://foovsbar.com

I don't know much about this and I was actually looking forward to the analysis just out of curiosity. Too bad 8/

In which case, there is no shortage of analysis available a mere Google search away.

Deleted comment

I found it hilarious. You must be one of those people that will die by your DVCS. They interop now too, thanks to the github guys.

Doh - I think it's my comment you replied to. I deleted it because I was just whining and flagged the submission instead.

For the record, I said the link wasn't worth the energy to click on.

It has nothing to do with my choice in source control, since I use subversion. I just think this kind of content-free crap belongs on reddit, not here.

Though I love much of the work done by the Github team, I feel I should note that what they've done (so far) only allows interoperability between a Git server and Mercurial client. Unfortunately there's no commercial pressure on them to provide a tool that works in reverse, because being very comfortable with git, I'd like to be able to use it with repositories hosted (for example) on Google Code, which uses hg. Ah, well. The advantage of it all being open-source is that it'll probably happen one day. Heh. I wonder how difficult that would be...

that was really awesome opening that page at work. thanks HN!

While I agree with this point of view more than the one that causes the pointless unproductive flamewars we've seen far too much of, one doesn't always have the choice of using what one likes. If you're comfortable with Git tools/workflow, and a project that you'd like to join the development of is using Mercurial (or vice-versa), that creates a slightly higher barrier of entry. Even given tools to allow a large degree of interoperability, you'll still (so far) be referring to commits by different ids and such.

Sure, it's minor, but it's not entirely dismissable.

People who have to invest substantial effort into using one or the other care.

The author's point seems to be "invest time in both, and use the one you like." Well, no shit, fucktard.

I agree with the point!

Which is why I use Subversion.

Have you tried Git or Hg?

I think the point is that Git and Hg are extremely close in features/power/etc., not that every SCM is equal.

Not trying to troll here; if you really prefer SVN over Git or Hg that's your preference. But if you haven't given them a chance, you'll do yourself a favor by trying one of them out.

Yes I have tried both, extensively. I use windows primarily, which pretty much eliminates Git. Git's architecture is a big turd as well. Mercurial is the closest contender but it's not there yet with tool support.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com