Re: [tlug] Open-source repository question

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

Edward Middleton writes:

 > As a console application I have had no problems using git on
 > windows.  The only complaint I have heard about git on windows is
 > that its a console application.  What specific issues are you
 > talking about?

There are known performance problems, I don't recall the exact
parameters (I don't use Windows at all anymore) but git can be much
slower than Mercurial for "large" repos and for network operations on
Windows.  ISTR that many projects implement workflow via shell scripts
and that kinda screws the Windows users too.

 > I don't know, reading that just made me think you guys were working
 > really hard to justify a position rather then make a decision.

What, because we didn't push features that Python has no use for?  The
basic conclusion was that there really was very little difference
among the three contenders in terms of power or fitting in to the
Python workflow.  The actual decision was made on the spot at PyCon:
Brett met with Guido, Guido read the conclusion, and said "there's
absolutely no reason not to choose Mercurial, right?" and Brett said
"No."  That was that.  Guido announced his decision, with no rationale
offered and even less complaint from the developers.

 > I found the comparison in the git-svn doc[1] gave a more compelling
 > argument for using mercurial.

There were no "compelling" reasons to choose Mercurial for Python.
What was important was that there were compelling reasons (performance
and instability) against bazaar, and no compelling reasons *for* git,
so the BDFL felt free to go with his gut feeling, and to some extent
to appease the rampant anti-git sentiment.

What scored the own goal for git at XEmacs was that I didn't have time
to do a repo conversion from CVS (the XEmacs repo is a hellhole), and
the guy who did was already using Mercurial.  I'd already been using
git privately, so I was kinda shocked by the lack a features I use
massively, but everybody else is really happy with Mercurial.

 > Do any of the mercurial hosting services have anything equivalent
 > to the github network graph visualizer[2]?

Not that I know of.  I don't know why Mercurial users would want one,
to be frank; Mercurial itself strongly encourages linear development
and rapid reconvergence to a handful (at most) number of branches.

Even the examples given in that post are like "d'oh, who cares?"
Advertised as "complex branching" ... heh, it's nothing like what the
original Arch guys did, or what you can see in some of the personal
branches of SXEmacs.