Re: [dev] Is Mercurial (hg) suckless?

From: Kris Maglione <>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 19:05:27 -0400

On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 05:49:48PM -0500, Matthew Bauer wrote:
>Would Mercurial be considered suckless?
>I've always wondered why suckless projects use Mercurial instead of the
>standard git for version control that is used by most Linux projects.
>Isn't Git more simpler than Mercurial?

Have you been eating wild mushrooms, or something? Whatever you
may say about git, simple it is most certainly not. Fast, maybe
(though Mercurial is comprable), written in C, yes (though
Mercrial's code is simpler), made of a collection of binaries
(less and less) rather than plugins, alright. Simple? No. Not
simple. Not by any standard simple, except perhaps by that of
CVS. Have some ipecac and ask again.

Kris Maglione
The first 90% of the code accounts for the first 90% of the
development time.  The remaining 10% of the code accounts for the
other 90% of the development time.
	--Tom Cargill
Received on Wed Jun 09 2010 - 23:05:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Jun 09 2010 - 23:12:02 UTC