On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Dirk Bächle <tshor...@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 09.01.2016 20:47, Bill Deegan wrote: > >> Dirk, >> >> For me, its "pain in having to remember how to do things in mercurial >> which I only use for scons" each time I go to work on it I >> have to refresh my mental cache. >> Which I'm pretty sure wouldn't be measurable by such statistics. But (at >> least for me) would increase the amount of fun it is to >> work on the project. >> >> > and this (I'm referring to the "increased fun" here) wouldn't result in > "more commits" and "more bugfixes"? Jonathon Reinhart stated this point in > his mail explicitly: more git -> more commits. This is my situation as well -- SCons is the only project I contribute to that still uses hg, and since I use git everywhere else I've become pretty expert at it. It's in my fingers and I don't even think about it anymore. I also have dozens of git aliases and config tweaks so I go pretty fast with it. There is of course also the better data model, but of course that's arguable so I'm only mentioning my personal situation -- but I suspect I'm not unique. So would switching lead to more commits and bugfixes? I can't say for sure but from what I've seen in hiring developers, almost everyone knows git and puts it on their resume, and I only rarely see hg experience. So it _might_ make it easier for other contributors. As for using a git-hg bridge, that would help local usage for us git users, but it doesn't change the underlying branching model. If it's decided not to switch, I might consider trying that. -- Gary
_______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list Scons-dev@scons.org https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev