git vs mercurial

[Kent Fredric]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:17 AM, Tom Hukins <tom at eborcom.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:58:12AM +0000, James Laver wrote:
> > I used mercurial in a nondistributed fashion at $previous_work and
> > that was a disaster. One guy kept pushing every 30 seconds and I
> > couldn't get a commit in edgeways.
>
> I haven't used Mercurial, but that sounds like a social problem rather
> than a technical shortcoming.
>

It is, but its also a huge case of user incompetence on the behalf of the
hammer-pusher.

When you have co-workers who completely fail to even understand the concept
of branches, mercurial doesn't do well to foster the idea of actually
keeping branches.

Mercurial tries too hard to solve the human issue of branch separation by
creating new branches automatically, which results in a side effect of the
attempt to automatically re-merge the separated branches, which includes
both circumstantially created soft-branches, and intentionally created
topic-branches without really much disambiguation.

Combine that fact with not understanding branches, and you find yourself
with an SCM that is only at all even viable in Non-WTF ways if all users are
pro-grade users. ( Or, you just have to avoid branches, period )

Git at least doesn't magically switch branches on you, or encourage users to
squash every new topic branch by sheer accident/stupidity, they don't even
have to know the branches are there.

Of course, the alternative is quitting working with fools. That tends to be
the best option.

</spite>

Kent

perl -e  "print substr( \"edrgmaM  SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3, 3 )
for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );"