Re: Thoughts on Git, Mercurial, Github, and Bitbucket.

Both git and mercurial (and darcs for that matter) are huge improvements over centralized SCMs like SVN. You could argue for days which one to use, and won't get any conclusive results.

I happen to prefer git, and I know a lot of other Perl people do. It wasn't much of a conscious decision, i just contributed to a few projects that used git, and thus learned it and eventually liked it. Later I learned a bit of hg too, and also liked it, though not enough to switch.

The perl 5 core is held in a git repo, as well as all serious Perl 6 compilers and nearly all of the Perl 6 modules.

I also get the impression that many Perl 5 modules use git (and I know it from a few big ones, like DBIx::Class, Moose and Mojolicious), many more than Mercurial.

As for the websites, it's been ages since I used bitbucket, and back then it didn't support any pull requests, so any opinion I could offer would probably be too out of date to take seriously.

Perl 6 - second systems done right

Comment on Re: Thoughts on Git, Mercurial, Github, and Bitbucket.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Thoughts on Git, Mercurial, Github, and Bitbucket. by educated_foo (Vicar) on Mar 26, 2012 at 13:31 UTC
Both git and mercurial (and darcs for that matter) are huge improvements over centralized SCMs like SVN. You could argue for days which one to use, and won't get any conclusive results. This. git and Mercurial are pretty much equivalent. I wouldn't use Darcs, because it has (had?) huge performance problems with large repositories, and doesn't seem to have enough developers. There's also Bazaar, but it is terrible. (Emacs adopted it some time ago, and someone quickly created a git gateway.)	[reply]
Re^3: Thoughts on Git, Mercurial, Github, and Bitbucket. by moritz (Cardinal) on Mar 26, 2012 at 14:16 UTC
See also: How well does darcs scale?. It seems some of the problems were fixed, while others still persist. Perl 6 - second systems done right	[reply]
Re^2: Thoughts on Git, Mercurial, Github, and Bitbucket. by bms (Monk) on Mar 26, 2012 at 06:47 UTC
Definitely agree with you. Both git and hg are improvements on older tools. Bitbucket does allow pulls now, but it is in Githubs shadow. It casts a huge. Has anyone taken a look at the help screens for git and hg? Dear Lord, looks shockingly similar. So similar... Draws a parallel from their respective 'social' websites on purpose? Feels like a version control conspiracy.	[reply]
Re^3: Thoughts on Git, Mercurial, Github, and Bitbucket. by moritz (Cardinal) on Mar 26, 2012 at 06:54 UTC
No need for any conspiracy theories; copying cool features from other programs and websites is an accepted development strategy. After all, why should should you only implement your own good ideas? Perl 6 - second systems done right	[reply]
Re^4: Thoughts on Git, Mercurial, Github, and Bitbucket. by bms (Monk) on Mar 26, 2012 at 07:03 UTC
It was a joke, but good point. However I would feel silly imitating another open source prject so closely. But hey, why not? It happens all the time.	[reply]
Re^5: Thoughts on Git, Mercurial, Github, and Bitbucket. by tobyink (Canon) on Mar 27, 2012 at 17:09 UTC


We don't bite newbies here... much
	PerlMonks