On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 3:27:43 PM UTC-5, ewfalor wrote: > > I just signed up for a Bitbucket account, and all of the new-user > tutorials I'm presented with encourage me to start a git repo. In > fact, I've only seen Mercurial mentioned once so far. Is Bitbucket > leaning towards git now, or is that just my impression? >
I don't think so. BitBucket started out as the GitHub equivalent to Mercurial. It still supports Mercurial just fine. I think it's just that more people these days use git, so naturally they'll write tutorials toward that, especially for people who might not know BitBucket supports git. > Based upon my experience with Vim plugins and plugin managers, I get > the distinct feeling that the larger proportion of plugins are hosted > in git repositories these days, specifically on GitHub. For that > matter, even the NeoVim guys are on GitHub. > > A cursory search for "vim plugin" on GitHub brings up 4,620 results. > Whereas on Bitbucket I found only 230 results. > That's very misleading. One of the plugin managers (I forget which one) set up a GitHub mirror of every vim.org plugin, whether the developers wanted it or not. Many of the vim plugins on github are only there to support automatic downloading via git in that plugin manager. > At any rate, my vote is to take this opportunity to migrate to git. I absolutely, unequivocally disagree. I think it would be a huge pain to do the move but would give us very little benefit. > I feel that while git and Mercurial are on even footing feature-wise, Exactly. You can do pretty much anything in one, with the other. There are even plugins for interoperability. And the repository is *already* in Mercurial, so there is little to gain from switching. > Vim is the only project I use which is hosted in a Mercurial repo, to > the point that my Mercurial skills are seriously atrophied. I'm > confident that is the experience for the majority of Vim users. > I don't think you can possibly speak for "the majority of Vim users" based on the fact that you personally use Git. And, Mercurial is a tool that makes it very hard to shoot yourself in the foot. Git makes it very easy to lose data permanently, even when you're doing something like a *push* which should *never* lose data in my opinion. Mercurial also is a lot easier to pick up with fewer concepts that need understanding. So I think people who occasionally need to dabble in Mercurial are probably better off than people who occasionally need to dabble in git. > I don't have a preference between Bitbucket vs. GitHub. Both services > seem robust and healthy. > So let's do BitBucket, so that we only need to change a hosting provider, rather than needing to also change the version control system as well. Mercurial is likewise very robust and healthy. I seem to remember reading somewhere about a hosting provider that provides one interface with both Git and Mercurial back-ends on the same project...but I can't remember what that hosting provider was, or whether they offer free hosting at all. Does anyone know what I might be thinking about? -- -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
