[Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

[Jonathon Reinhart]

There has been at least one case where I discovered a small issue with
SCons and went to go submit a pull request, but then remembered SCons uses
hg, and decided it wasn't worth the effort to install hg, and learn the
differences between it and Git.

Is this a case of laziness? Perhaps. But I suspect there are many others
who feel the same. With Git, many people already understand the branch,
push, pull request model.

This goes for other open source projects using other VCS as well. I have
encountered this same laziness when projects required SVN, or patches
emailed.

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:10 PM, Mark A. Flacy <mflacy at verizon.net> wrote:

> I'd say that git is perfectly happy with multiple heads in a given
> repository while hg is pretty cranky with that setup. Or at least it was
> when I last used hg.
>
>
>
> Once you've pushed something to an external repository with git, the
> history is pretty much unmutable. You'd have to convince the rest of the
> world to agree with your view of the new history.
>
>
>
> I guess the bottom line for scons is that there are some people who have
> publicly stated that using hg over git will probably convince them to do
> something else than contribute to the project. I haven't been watching that
> closely, but have there been cases of the reverse? If not, I should think
> that would answer the question.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Mark A. Flacy
>
> mflacy at verizon.net
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 09:43:24 AM Dirk Bächle wrote:
>
> > Hi Mark,
>
> >
>
> > On 10.05.2016 04:21, Mark A. Flacy wrote:
>
> > > Mr. Bächle, you should try to use git for a couple of your internal
>
> > > projects.
>
> > No need to get formal... ;)
>
> >
>
> > I am using git for several projects (some own and some open-source), and
> I
>
> > don't mind it. As I tried to explain before, I'm not opposed to making
> the
>
> > switch to git for the SCons repo...but I'm trying to make sure that we're
>
> > doing it for the right reasons.
>
> >
>
> > And when single persons claim that there is a "hindrance" for them in
>
> > contributing to SCons currently, because there's so much syntax that is
>
> > hard to remember I start to wonder: with how many issues at the same time
>
> > are these users juggling? Because if one works on at most one bug at a
>
> > time, one should be able to get away with a "linear series of commits":
>
> >
>
> > hg clone ...
>
> > # edit
>
> > hg commit
>
> > hg pull / push
>
> >
>
> > which are all the same as in git. One can even throw in a "hg add" and it
>
> > won't hurt, but only remind you that the file is already under version
>
> > control. ;)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > It's not about my personal preferences, it's all about the project.
>
> >
>
> > Best regards,
>
> >
>
> > Dirk
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > P.S.: One of my personal preferences is: I *don't* want the history in my
>
> > repos to be mutable...maybe that's why git doesn't seem to be so more
>
> > powerful than hg to me, and why I still consider them to be "on par"
>
> > regarding functionality. At least for the work I have to do with them...
>
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > Scons-dev mailing list
>
> > Scons-dev at scons.org
>
> > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scons-dev mailing list
> Scons-dev at scons.org
> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/scons-dev/attachments/20160511/c28ecd0c/attachment.html>