On 07/28/2015 01:32 PM, Adam Chlipala wrote: > - Moving to Git & GitHub also seems like a no-brainer.
I'd like to express a somewhat late -1 vote for moving to git. Git has a number of technical deficiencies compared to Mercurial. Firstly, its command-line syntax is more difficult to use. More importantly, git has a poor philosophy regarding history: git history is treated as mutable (e.g. "git commit --amend" and "git rebase"), changesets can in some cases end up as "orphaned objects" and be automatically garbage-collected, and the git history does not keep a record of which branch a given changeset is on. Mercurial treats history as immutable by default, and makes it much more difficult to corrupt it. All in all, the main reason a project wouldn't want to use Mercurial is because it has some barrier to entry due to being less well-known than git. However, since Ur/Web is already using Mercurial, this isn't much an issue. The main advantages associated with GitHub are a nicer web interface, issue tracking, and pull requests. However, since the investments in running Ur/Web's web interface, Mantis issue tracking system, and mailing list have already been made, this is a relatively small gain, especially if we would continue to use the mailing list and Mantis for pull requests and issues anyway. -- Istvan Chung _______________________________________________ Ur mailing list [email protected] http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur
