1

Topic: Why ... People agitate for Mercurial?

Well clearly it is visible that at it any perspectives: https://stackshare.io/stackups/git-vs-mercurial

2

Re: Why ... People agitate for Mercurial?

Hello, Ejnstok Fajr, you wrote: > Well clearly it is visible that at it any perspectives: > https://stackshare.io/stackups/git-vs-mercurial And what for to the monitoring system of versions of perspective? Works and is fine.

3

Re: Why ... People agitate for Mercurial?

vsb> And what for to the monitoring system of versions of perspective? Works and is fine. We admit still there is no and it is necessary to select, what to use in a command. One "leader" for mercurial, other people for git. What to do with the first?

4

Re: Why ... People agitate for Mercurial?

Hello, Ejnstok Fajr, you wrote: vsb>> And what for to the monitoring system of versions of perspective? Works and is fine. > It is admissible still there is no and it is necessary to select, what to use in a command. One "leader" for mercurial, other people for git. What to do with the first? Choice process should be somehow formalized. Such disagreements can arise continually above a roof. For example the last word for the chief that it tells, and to use.

5

Re: Why ... People agitate for Mercurial?

Hello, Ejnstok Fajr, you wrote: > Well clearly it is visible that at it any perspectives: > https://stackshare.io/stackups/git-vs-mercurial And at what here "perspectives"? There are pluses and usage minuses, and from very good pluses - that that is the uniform tool, instead of a dump of utilities as git for which start almost high-grade Cygwin (or WSL) it is necessary. In remaining - at all I do not see sense * for the monitoring system of versions (if it corresponds to requirements).

6

Re: Why ... People agitate for Mercurial?

Hello, Ejnstok Fajr, you wrote: > It is admissible still there is no and it is necessary to select, what to use in a command. One "leader" for mercurial, other people for git. What to do with the first? To  there is a plug-in which transforms it in the first class client to  to a repository. I suppose, and to  there is a similar plug-in. Accordingly that would not be selected on "server", by the working machine each interested person can use that to it it is convenient, without any damage for interaction with a command. Therefore it makes sense to select how the server side will be arranged. We tell, if it  the choice as is obvious, and if something self-made, it is necessary to look what easier to screw together with a remaining infrastructure, and in an ideal to select elements of this infrastructure from a complex, taking into account convenience  them among themselves.

7

Re: Why ... People agitate for Mercurial?

Hello, Ejnstok Fajr, you wrote: > https://stackshare.io/stackups/git-vs-mercurial "And judges who?" (c). It is clear that now all beginners sit down at once on git and sense to study something another are not present - so also the percent of votes to itself are quite explainable. And so it worked normally still when on git without tears it was impossible to look. Especially under Windows.

8

Re: Why ... People agitate for Mercurial?

Hello, Ejnstok Fajr, you wrote: > Well clearly it is visible that at it any perspectives: > https://stackshare.io/stackups/git-vs-mercurial Well, there are, for example, aspects of a competition. The more difficult and  the tool, the more I will benefit, if my competitors study it. I do not know, how it concerns was specific to Mercurial, but a principle general-purpose.

9

Re: Why ... People agitate for Mercurial?

Hello, Ejnstok Fajr, you wrote: > Well clearly it is visible that at it any perspectives: > https://stackshare.io/stackups/git-vs-mercurial Merkurial is more convenient and more obvious for using through ,  from command line. In remaining Since I on its basis (type ) hate command line and other perversions, in  which supervised there was a rule - if all ,  if is three persons, which not , . In remaining they are almost interchangeable, it is precisely possible to pull and push hg from  turnips and almost for certain it is possible on the contrary.

10

Re: Why ... People agitate for Mercurial?

> Well clearly it is visible By no means. Personally I  hate for rather nonconventional approaches. The tool of storage of the code should not me speak, as to me to conduct development.

11

Re: Why ... People agitate for Mercurial?

Hello, Ejnstok Fajr, you wrote: > Well clearly it is visible that at it any perspectives: > https://stackshare.io/stackups/git-vs-mercurial I __ now __ there is nobody I do not agitate, but I can explain why I agitated on  couple of years back:  the client under  ( ) produced the Most popular to me AV by operation in   a hub. Not , couple of years back. But  did not allow the such.

12

Re: Why ... People agitate for Mercurial?

Hello, Ejnstok Fajr, you wrote: > Well clearly it is visible that at it any perspectives: And I am simple SVN I use...

13

Re: Why ... People agitate for Mercurial?

J>  the client under  ( ) produced the Most popular to me AV by operation in   a hub. It , you could also itself ...

14

Re: Why ... People agitate for Mercurial?

Hello, Ejnstok Fajr, you wrote: We use Mercurial on operation. From real pluses: it is easy enough to train people in bases and there is one normal interface in the form of TortoiseHG. More difficultly , I quite often heard from friends as beginners use Git th and spoil history, push - force without analysis. In the environments from JetBrains a difference between monitoring systems of versions generally are leveled. From minuses: MS GitHub Some hammered on it and support only Git, and therefore without knowledge to Git advanced people not to get to anywhere well or all to do exceptional from IDE. And Git works in huge projects much faster.

15

Re: Why ... People agitate for Mercurial?

Hello, AlexRK, you wrote: ARK> Hello, Ejnstok Fajr, you wrote: >> Well clearly it is visible that at it any perspectives: ARK> And I am simple SVN I use... There are no reasons to use SVN, if it not FreeBSD Source. For individualists is Fossil SCM.

16

Re: Why ... People agitate for Mercurial?

Hello, _NN _, you wrote: _NN> And Git works in huge projects much faster. That did not hinder to use Mercurial for development OpenJDK and Mozilla.

17

Re: Why ... People agitate for Mercurial?

Hello, iZEN, you wrote: ZEN> Hello, _NN _, you wrote: _NN>> And Git works in huge projects much faster. ZEN> that did not hinder to use Mercurial for development OpenJDK and Mozilla. To me too especially does not hinder. But  will rewrite: https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/OxidationPlan

18

Re: Why ... People agitate for Mercurial?

Hello, iZEN, you wrote: ARK>> And I am simple SVN I use... ZEN> There are no reasons to use SVN, if it not FreeBSD Source. Why?

19

Re: Why ... People agitate for Mercurial?

Hello, AlexRK, you wrote: iZEN>> There are no reasons to use SVN, if it not FreeBSD Source. ARK> Why? Therefore: https://habrahabr.ru/post/177451/

20

Re: Why ... People agitate for Mercurial?

Hello, AlexRK, you wrote: ARK> And I am simple SVN I use... Here, by the way, the textbook for passage with SVN on Mercurial: https://habrahabr.ru/post/108443/

21

Re: Why ... People agitate for Mercurial?

Hello, iZEN, you wrote: iZEN>>> There are no reasons to use SVN, if it not FreeBSD Source. ARK>> Why? ZEN> Therefore: https://habrahabr.ru/post/177451/did not see in this article why there are no reasons to use SVN. Are offered doubtful (for me, anyway) advantages at the expense of complexity magnification.

22

Re: Why ... People agitate for Mercurial?

Hello, iZEN, you wrote: ARK>> And I am simple SVN I use... ZEN> Here, by the way, the textbook for passage with SVN on Mercurial: https://habrahabr.ru/post/108443/Hm, I will better be engaged in something more interesting, than passage to other monitoring system of versions.

23

Re: Why ... People agitate for Mercurial?

Hello, _NN _, you wrote: _NN> To me too especially does not hinder. _NN> but  will rewrite: https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/OxidationPlan Substantiations of necessity in places look strange, start 250 (in comparison with 10 at git) - can I somehow not so the monitoring system of versions I use, but it is normal at all does not hinder - git is launched for  and synchronization, and against duration of synchronization 250 not that what it is a lot of.

24

Re: Why ... People agitate for Mercurial?

Hello, Ejnstok Fajr, you wrote: > Well clearly it is visible that at it any perspectives:  leaders of a command. I work in a Visual Studio, there there is a normal support from a box of two systems: TFS and Git. Means, I use them is the less I should think of the monitoring system of versions, the better. I should see the list of the changed files, their history in studio, to compare the code, to do rollbacks and . I am occupied by code writing in studio, to be picked command line or indirect programs of time was not present. Therefore Mercurial goes to a fire chamber together with other systems which have no support in studio and hinder me to write the code, forcing to be interrupted on fuss with them. Technical advantages of different systems are absolutely insignificant in typical projects of literary trash of a software to order. If I sit in FreeBSD where there is no studio I use SVN it it is simple and clear, does not brake me in operation. And any Git it is not necessary.

25

Re: Why ... People agitate for Mercurial?

Hello, Vladek, you wrote: V> Hello, Ejnstok Fajr, you wrote: >> Well clearly it is visible that at it any perspectives: V> Vkusovshchina of leaders of a command. I work in a Visual Studio, there there is a normal support from a box of two systems: TFS and Git. Means, I use them is the less I should think of the monitoring system of versions, the better. I should see the list of the changed files, their history in studio, to compare the code, to do rollbacks and . I am occupied by code writing in studio, to be picked command line or indirect programs of time was not present. I for myself use Mercurial. And though it can use from Studio for some reason I prefer separate native client TortoiseHg Whether because in Studio and so many superfluous pens and buttons, and in the client all that concerns control of versions it is separated from Studio and it is collected in one place. Whether because TortoiseHg such convenient - tried other clients (SourceTree and SmartGit/Hg), but somehow did not go.