6 ms·

I use both. I dont think Git 'won' but it is more popular. I suspect many git users dont even know why they use git except because they were told to, they proba

by yapcguy 13y ago

I use both. I dont think Git 'won' but it is more popular. I suspect many git users dont even know why they use git except because they were told to, they probably never tried hg or know anything about darcs, bitkeeper, etc.

leobelle 13y ago
I like git because it stores objects, not diffs and you can recover from almost anything with reflog.
- anton_gogolev 13y ago
  > I like git because it stores objects, not diffs Now _that's_ a reason to pick a VCS! Would you drop Git if you found out that this is not true [1]? [1]: http://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Internals-Packfiles http://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Internals-Packfiles
  - tomlu 13y ago
    I see where he is coming from even if the wording is ambiguous. Git presents the abstraction of storing objects, and diffs are inferred. The exact implementation is beside the point.
    - tonfa 13y ago
      But then mercurial is the same, the abstraction is about file content, the diff compression is an internal detail of the storage format like packs.
      - tomlu 13y ago
        Yeah for sure. Mercurial is great too. I was thinking of SVN which does store its commits as diffs, which makes it brittle (anyone that has tried to use the svn admin tools to rewrite the repository will know what I mean).
sopooneo 13y ago
I use Git because everyone else does. And I'm not ashamed of that; I think it's pragmatic. However, I think I would prefer if the crowd had converged on Mercurial instead.
kyrra 13y ago
But being more popular is a reason groups will pick it. See Emacs's discussion on moving away from BZR [0]. While there are some people that like HG, Git popularity brings some benefits with it. A larger user base and a large number of companies using it mean that there will be more investment in the tool. So there is a variety of companies that invest in it. There is a smaller chance development will stop on Git compared to HG. So basically the Emacs team concluded they don't want to be stuck with another BZR, and Git seems like a safer choice. A variety of companies have bet on HG, but decided they needed to support Git along side it to get more sales (Fog Creek and Atlassian). I feel like Github was the deciding tech that made Git the more popular code. There are a number of other companies supporting HG still, so it won't go away anytime soon, but it's hard to say if it'll be here as long as Git. [0] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg00005.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg000...

by yapcguy 13y ago

leobelle 13y ago

I like git because it stores objects, not diffs and you can recover from almost anything with reflog.

anton_gogolev 13y ago
> I like git because it stores objects, not diffs Now _that's_ a reason to pick a VCS! Would you drop Git if you found out that this is not true [1]? [1]: http://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Internals-Packfiles http://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Internals-Packfiles
- tomlu 13y ago
  I see where he is coming from even if the wording is ambiguous. Git presents the abstraction of storing objects, and diffs are inferred. The exact implementation is beside the point.
  - tonfa 13y ago
    But then mercurial is the same, the abstraction is about file content, the diff compression is an internal detail of the storage format like packs.
    - tomlu 13y ago
      Yeah for sure. Mercurial is great too. I was thinking of SVN which does store its commits as diffs, which makes it brittle (anyone that has tried to use the svn admin tools to rewrite the repository will know what I mean).

sopooneo 13y ago

I use Git because everyone else does. And I'm not ashamed of that; I think it's pragmatic. However, I think I would prefer if the crowd had converged on Mercurial instead.

kyrra 13y ago

But being more popular is a reason groups will pick it. See Emacs's discussion on moving away from BZR [0]. While there are some people that like HG, Git popularity brings some benefits with it. A larger user base and a large number of companies using it mean that there will be more investment in the tool. So there is a variety of companies that invest in it. There is a smaller chance development will stop on Git compared to HG. So basically the Emacs team concluded they don't want to be stuck with another BZR, and Git seems like a safer choice. A variety of companies have bet on HG, but decided they needed to support Git along side it to get more sales (Fog Creek and Atlassian). I feel like Github was the deciding tech that made Git the more popular code. There are a number of other companies supporting HG still, so it won't go away anytime soon, but it's hard to say if it'll be here as long as Git. [0] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg00005.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg000...