Yigal Chripun wrote:
disclaimer: I'm a git user, mainly on Unix but also on windows.It seems to me from reading the above that this is not a fair and objective comparison. you're saying that A is better than B just because you are used to A.more specifically, git's command line structure of:git <global options> <cmd> <cmd options> is more organized than what you describe in mercurial.
The point here is that Mercurial's way is more flexible. It's a small thing but it can be very useful. For example, when you type a command, if you realize that you forgot an option, with Mercurial you can just add that option then and there. With Git, you have to ask yourself "is this a global option?" then depending on the answer you can add it immediately or you need to move to the right place so that you can add the option then move back to the end of the line to finish typing. It's a small thing but it makes life so much easier...
saying that "Mercurial command names are much more intuitive (especially coming from cvs/svn)" is also misleading since git has a completely different conceptual model that IMO should not try to fit with CVS concepts. If that is really a big issue for you just set up aliases in .gitconfig with your preferred command names (I was a subversion user myself and initially did exactly that)
The main issue here isn't day to day usage once you know Git perfectly. The issue is about how easy it is to learn Git (with a minor point added when you need to use different SCMs for different projects, having similar command names for similar operations is much easier than having to remember several completely different command sets).
colored output - you didn't even try to enable it in git (which is trivial)
That one was too minor a point for me to loose much time on it. If I were to start using Git on a regular basis, I would look more deeply.
Yes, when I use an open source soft, I try to give something back to the community (time permitting), either in the form of patches, bug reports or suggestions.but you have written a patch to do the same for mercurial.
I have no problem with your preference to use mercurial, just don't claim that git is not ready to be used on windows because of that preference.
You've missed the point. All the answers you gave can be argued as a matter of preference and none of them are the reason I claim Git is not ready to be used on Windows (hell, if they were I would have claimed that Git is not ready for use, period).
The reason why I claim that Git is not ready is that it exhibits suspicious behaviour when cloning repositories and checking out files. I would expect that immediately after a checkout, the "status" command would report the file to be unmodified. I would also expect that cloning a repository with no changes would give me an identical repository with no reported changes. Since Git didn't fulfil those basic expectations, I am worried about what *else* it might be doing wrong with my files.
Jerome
--
mailto:jeber...@free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeber...@jabber.fr
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
