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

On 10 June 2010 00:05, Kris Maglione <maglione.k_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Not to mention svn, which is much worse than CVS in any respect. I
experienced the joy a while ago to compile a more recent svn from
scratch with all dependencies. It was no fun and contained many
surprises as its dependencies popped up.

My verdict is: the svn developers seem to have created a big monster
in order to keep their Google employment, I'd rather drive a review
rather soon of those guys if I was in charge at Google. ;)

Kind regards,
Anselm
Received on Thu Jun 10 2010 - 06:49:40 UTC