Tools survey

Giorgos Keramidas keramida at ceid.upatras.gr
Thu Jul 10 11:28:24 CDT 2008


On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:56:25 +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab at web.de> wrote:
> Am Donnerstag 10 Juli 2008 17:34:46 schrieb John D. Mitchell:
>> The most crucial, IMHO, is the fact that it doesn't ask the
>> respondents to note which of the tools they have actually used.  So
>
> I had that problem in a discussion with a Git user (in the GNU Hurd
> mailing list).
>
> He had never used Mercurial but claimed, that it couldn't ever be as powerful
> as git... It grew into a quite long discussion.
>
> -> If you want to follow it:
> - Initial message:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2008-05/msg00112.html
>
> - And here the thread began to grow long :) :
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2008-05/msg00128.html
>
> - And spanned into the next month:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2008-06/msg00001.html
>
> - A short summary at the bottom of the following message:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2008-06/msg00112.html

That's an interesting thread.  I especially liked comments like:

    "You are missing the point. With git, *it is not necessary* to
    extend -- it's all there; git itself already allows doing pretty
    much anything conceivable!"
    -- from the message posted at:
    http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2008-06/msg00031.html

I can't really agree to that sort of thought pattern.  It seems pretty
close to ``This is your straight-jacket.  It has everything you can ever
think about, so there's no way to extend it.''

Fortunately, that's not the mindset of the Git developers :)



More information about the Mercurial mailing list