Re: preferring mercurial

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

François Orieux writes:

 > I don't know to, but you can't say "git is better"
 > and say after you don't know about hg.

And I didn't.  I said I like it better (I've used both heavily), and I
said the model of version control *presented to the user* (not to the
developer) is cleaner.

 > Git is excellent and a good choice for emacs. But by taking into account
 > all the pro and cons of both tools, we must admit that the sole thing
 > that really remains is that git is popular: git is chosen because
 > "everybody" chose this tool. Why not afterall.

There is another thing.  Other things being equal, I think the Emacs
developers as a group prefer tools that say "Hi, I'm the git VCS.
Hack me!"  I've never been tempted to hack hg (and I *like* Python),
and considered hacking bzr only to help a friend (which I quickly
learned was not worth it).

Certainly some senior Emacs developers have expressed a strong
preference for a VCS that doesn't need to be hacked, and undoubtedly a
fair amount of hacking around git by somebody is needed to help them
achieve comfortable workflows.  Whether it's worth it is their decision.