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

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 07:49:40AM +0100, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>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. ;)

There is one bright spot, though. If you manage to get SVN
installed (and to keep it working after you upgrade any library
on your system), you don't have to use it anymore. SVN is so
intolerably aweful that hg and git both have svn interfaces, so
once you deal with a clone time of about 50× longer than it
should be, you get to use something sane. For that matter, you
can use hg with git repos just like they're hg repos, which is
always nice.

-- 
Kris Maglione
Only the educated are free.
	--Epictetus