Mercurial versus Git part 999

Here’s an interesting blog post by one of the Mercurial developers, in response to some questions from Git partisans grumbling about having to use Mercurial.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/codereview-discuss/ilUffSph68I/NCldEt2Ii-4J

I still think Git is better at the foundation and in usage, but there are things I would steal from Mercurial. One thing Git really needs is a way to make rebase palatable even after you’ve pushed to others. Mercurial has a feature called changeset evolution that might be what I want: https://air.mozilla.org/changesets-evolution-with-mercurial/. Another interesting feature in Mercurial is that you can tag commits with “secret” (hg phase-fs) to prevent them from being pushed by default.

I need to do some timing tests to see what happens to Mercurial when you have repositories with lots of files in them (1 million+), since their manifest is flat, as opposed to using the direntry-style that Git uses (tree objects). But on the other hand, Git has a lot of tree objects due to this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>