Sigh. If there's one other version-control system that deserved to survive the seemingly inevitable triumph of git, it's Mercurial.
22 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 7 previous comments
- And thankfully we nowadays have 'git clone hg::http://foo' built into recent git releases, so we even get a usable interface to those few mercurial holdouts.
(complete with pushing, pulling and most other things I tried)Dec 11, 2013
- Mrf. Put me in the camp that considers hg more usable than git.Dec 11, 2013
- Having not really used hg much, I still think you're probably right-- you wouldn't be complaining if you'd used SVN. It's not actually badly designed or hard to use, but centralized version control systems are inherently incapable of certain things that you just end up wanting to do. Like committing locally. Or branches that aren't effectively fork-only. SVN is a good implementation of a bad idea.
I personally use Git for everything I can now, except one project that's still on SVN. I plan on trying to learn HG soon, because it's supposed to have better Windows support which may help me convince the other developers to switch from SVN.Dec 11, 2013
- I prefer hg to git, (sane defaults, more clean syntax, better Windows support, etc.) But the internet doesn't seem to share my preferences, especially in the web development community.Dec 12, 2013
- Has something happened to the project?Dec 18, 2013
It's still out there. But languishing.Dec 18, 2013