Almost everything you've written here about our language choices is wrong. I'm not sure where you got your information but:
1) Mercurial 5.0 will be a beta release supporting Python 3 (probably with some issues left to fix on Windows - we need help). See https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/Python3 2) We are not "rewriting Mercurial in Rust", at least not on any kind of timescale where predictions are meaningful. We're trying to use Rust instead of C because we're tired of CVEs. I'm not worried about the future of Mercurial, and it even looks like Python 3 will provide us some nice wins on things like memory use. > On Mar 11, 2019, at 23:37, Somchai Smythe <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Well, I'll tell you my perspective, but I admit my use case is > probably not common and my opinions are probably controversial. Maybe > it'll spark a response that states the plan going forward, and we'd > all like know if there is such a plan, and if it exists what it is and > what the timeframe is. > > Mercurial doesn't really work with python3, and python2 is pretty much > end-of-life. Switching to git is the only viable option unless the > mercurial people fix this, and they seem to be unable or unwilling to > embrace python3. This is why I switched all my projects to git, even > though I much prefer mercurial. I need something that works > cross-platform and will still be working in the years to come, and > anything which requires python2 is doomed. I even had to throw out > all my teaching materials and rewrite them for git (that was a > non-trivial exerciese). Trying to teach git to students new to Linux, > well, it's turned out to be about 10 times harder than teaching > mercurial to them. But I don't want to teach dead-end technology > since it won't be useful to them after graduation. > > I'm depressed by the fact that even after all this time the mercurial > maintainers didn't either learn python3 or rewrite it in straight C, > but they've hinted they'll go with rust. My non-teaching systems > where I once used mercurial are all offline systems and I use > thumbdrives to move data on and off of them. The rust toolchain > requires a live internet connection to even build, so I cannot work > with that toolchain. How can people even trust something that makes > it practically impossible to see the source they are actually building > with without using tcpdump/wireshark to capture the streams? The > proponents claim rust is more secure, but who can actually be sure > since it downloads code you cannot reivew during the build? It could > put _anything_ in there and you'd never know it until too late. And > yeah, I had to dump firefox for the same reason. If they had chosen > 'go', C or C++, they don't have these rust issues and I'd be willing > to try it. > > Meanwhile, git builds fine without an internet connection, it handles > the linux kernel fine which certainly builds my confidence it can > handle anything I'll ever need to do with it, even microsoft has > switched to git, and it sure seems to me it'll be the last vcs > standing when the dust settles. The fact that git is also the most > difficult and tedious to use is unfortunate, but a price most seem > willing to pay to get one ubiquitous vcs that builds and runs > anywhere, builds easily, and is designed for high performance. > > If, and this is rather unlikely, the mercurial team ditched rust and > embraced python3, which also runs everywhere I care about, I might > consider switching back, but switching vcs keeping history, tags, etc. > is so much trouble I suspect most large projects wouldn't even > consider it once they've completed their switch to git. > > If mercurial wants to remain alive, the maintainers need to deliver a > drop-in replacement, even if it is a rust-based thing that wouldn't > work for me, that doesn't use the doomed python2, and it'll need to be > backwards compatible with the older hg repos. It could still happen, > but is it wise to rely on that? Only you can evaluate the risk and > make that decision. > > Since the linux distribution I use doesn't even have python2 any more, > the decision has already been made for me. > > > On 3/10/19, Harley Leyton <[email protected]> wrote: >> -- The following is written in good faith for frank, honest discussion -- >> >> I began using hg many years ago, back when git had a horrible UI and didn't >> work on Windows. Since then, git has become fully supported on Windows and >> the UI has much improved. hg still has the edge for user-friendliness and >> cross-platform support, but git has almost 100% of the mindshare and market. >> >> I've been stubbornly sticking with hg for hobby projects, but I almost never >> encounter anything other than git in the open source and commercial worlds. >> (I'm aware that hg is used in both, but this is a rare exception.) hg seems >> to be going very much in the direction of bzr, although we're clearly not >> there yet. >> >> I'm interested in more positive - but realistic - perspectives. >> _______________________________________________ >> Mercurial mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial >> > _______________________________________________ > Mercurial mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial _______________________________________________ Mercurial mailing list [email protected] https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial
