Mercurial vs Git; it’s all in the branches

http://felipec.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/mercurial-vs-git-its-all-in-the-branches/

by JayInt • 15 years ago

14 39 15 years ago

felipec.wordpress.com

To me, it's obvious that the author has entered the comparison with a very strong git bias, so it is only naturally that git won eventually.

He is right on one thing: the differences are mostly subtle, the most glaring one being whether history is allowed to be rewritten or not. In the end it all comes down to personal preferences, and my personal experience is strongly in favor of hg.

parfe• 15 years ago

>To me, it's obvious that the author has entered the comparison with a very strong git bias, so it is only naturally that git won eventually.

Was it obvious because he specifically notes it in the intro to the article?

Note: I’m a long-time advocate of Git, and a contributor to the project, so I am biased (but I hope my conclusions are not).

eipipuz2• 15 years ago

That's not obvious. He clearly says he hopes his conclusions would go beyond his bias.

He failed to do so, but we couldn't know that without reading the article.

BerislavLopac4• 15 years ago

LOL no, I missed that one. But the sibling is correct, the author failed.

eslaught2• 15 years ago

The author seems to contradict himself in a comment[1]: My objective is to show why Git is superior. (Thanks to [2] for noticing.)

[1] http://felipec.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/mercurial-vs-git-its...

[2] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3437677

masklinn2• 15 years ago

> the most glaring one being whether history is allowed to be rewritten or not.

That's not even true, history is allowed to be rewritten in mercurial (mercurial-bundled extensions `rebase`, and `mq` as well as the standard `rollback` command do — or can be used to do — exactly that, and so do third-party extensions such as `histedit`), there's little difference on that point. The difference is the tendency to push for history-rewriting.

BerislavLopac4• 15 years ago

OK, "supposed" might be a better choice than "allowed"; but that's splitting hairs.

stevecooperorg3• 15 years ago

Yeah, this wasn't a straight comparison, but an act of apologetics.

yeswecan• 15 years ago

Let us not forget that GitHub is a major reason why people choose Git. If Bitbucket (or a hypothetical HgHub) had taken the larger market share first, we'd likely see more projects using Hg than Git.

merijnv• 15 years ago

I don't see how that factors in? I've been playing with GitHub a bit and I use hg. I just use the hggit extension the github guys wrote to interact with git and GitHub.

rcthompson• 15 years ago

Yes, now you can use hg on GitHub just fine, but hggit didn't exist when GitHub got big.

Ixiaus2• 15 years ago

I love hg, and bitbucket is the best we've got - but man, the developers at BitBucket have their heads stuck in so deep in the sand!!!

GitHub "won" because the developers were not only innovative but they listened to their user base. BitBucket developers have, so far, just scoffed at my requests for changes to features that should be fundamentally different.

For example, the issues system. When you first hit the issues list it sorts by most recent date created; if I want to see the most critical tickets (sorted by priority) I have to click on the priority column; but wait, that first sorts it as least important first (wtf?) so I have to click it AGAIN to get the highest priority tickets.

I put in two support tickets on the matter, one asking for the default when hitting the page to be sort by priority (most critical first) so I can see WHAT IS MOST CRITICAL THAT NEEDS TO GET DONE NOW. If not the default, give a settings option so that I can set what the default to sort by could be! Their response? "Create a bookmark" - yeah, that's what I've done but I shouldn't have to do that. It's little shit like this that irks me about bbucket vs GitHub.

The second ticket has to do with that silliness that is sorting least important first when you first click on the column sort... Le sigh.

I still use it though because I prefer mercurial to git.

StavrosK• 15 years ago

Why not just use hg-git with github? I use BitBucket for the private repo hosting, but, as a service, github blows BB out of the water.

Xylakant4• 15 years ago

Full ack. Github and it's widespread usage is actually the only reason I switched over to git as my main VCS. Close to 100% of my usual use-cases would be well-served by a recent version of svn. I know, there's a ton of use-cases that benefit tremendously from git's model, but those are not mine.

I still hate how the raw cli interface with tons of switches forces me to learn git's internals and storage model. Git advocates usually tell me "you need to know to unleash the powers of git" but actually, I'd rather prefer not to know and regard it as an opaque tool.

Compared to svn or hg the cli feels crude and not well thought over either. There's commands that accept the full verb (add, diff, checkout, clone), others that accept an abbreviation (rm, mv), but no (remove, move). I can set that up using aliases, I know. But why do I have to? Then there's add, move and remove, but no copy (which is "cp <file>; git add <file>). I often find myself typing the wrong incantation because there's a mismatch in how the commands are named. In that respect svn really shines in comparison.

stevecooperorg3• 15 years ago

The internal representation aspect is important -- specifically, having to deal with the index as separate from both your working directory and your repository. that makes it harder to get started.

ceol2• 15 years ago

>My recommendation to other people facing similar decisions is to choose the project that has a brighter future, chances are the “disadvantages” you see in the present would be resolved soon enough.

That's not what I would recommend at all. There's no guarantee a project will resolve those issues or that new ones will crop up. Google was correct in choosing hg because it was the best choice at the time (back in 2008).

It looks like his only positive point are the branches, and then goes on to say, "The conclusion shouldn’t be that surprising; Git wins." I'd imagine hg being supported in Windows without requiring a third party install is a big plus.

I think the first comment puts it nicely: http://gitvsmercurial.com/

----------- edit -----------

It looks like the author had a discussion in the comments:

>My objective is to show why Git is superior. So if you care about your own performance, and the one of your project, the choice is obvious. One allows you to do many things, the other one doesn’t.

However, this contradicts his previous statement that the differences between the two are subtle and only proves his bias is heavily influencing his conclusion.

ChrisLTD• 15 years ago

"That's not what I would recommend at all. There's no guarantee a project will resolve those issues or that new ones will crop up."

Also, Google probably figured the tool they chose would have a bright future considering Google's prominence. In hindsight, Github won the community over and pushed Git toward critical mass.

ceol2• 15 years ago

>In hindsight, Github won the community over and pushed Git toward critical mass.

Exactly this. For me, the biggest reason for using Git was GitHub; I could have my code stored on their server and easily collaborate with my friends.

Xylakant4• 15 years ago

I rather dislike how the author dismisses the fact that other people have other use-cases.

The author chooses one use-case of his liking and demonstrates how (in his opinion) git handles that use case far superior than hg. I remain unconvinced that git's handling is actually better and while that may be a common case for him, I have yet to meet that use case.

I know of at least one company that still uses cvs as VCS of their choice because it perfectly fits their use case, does exactly what's needed and does not introduce any artificial complexity. Probably pretty much any modern VCS rips CVS apart in terms of features and storage model, but I can understand their reasons. By the authors reasoning they should switch to git because it's clearly and demonstrable superior in all respects.

stevecooperorg3• 15 years ago

For me, the big missing use case is using it on Windows. It feels like git actively hates the Windows developer. Install mysygit on a windows box and the recommended option is to use a bash shell. A bash shell on a windows machine.

The message seems to be 'git's never going to really try to work your way; why not pretend you're using *nix?'

felipec8• 15 years ago

I did not dismiss any use-case. As I said; they are mostly the same. So, if you don't need complex use of branches, you would be fine with either git or mercurial, obviously.

But that's a chicken and egg situation; you don't know what you are missing until after you try out. Oh, I don't "need" more memory, I don't "need" an SSD, I don't need a 1TB drive. But once you have them, you suddenly realize you can't live without them. And that's usually what happens when people realize how they can utilize git branches effectively.

You are free to disagree, but at worst, they are exactly the same, and at best, git branches are superior (and so far nobody has managed to demonstrate otherwise in the 160 comments in my blog). So, why would you pick anything else than git?

felipec8• 15 years ago

There's no guarantee that new issues will crop up? Well, that's an argument against mercurial as well, is it not? Hell, it's an argument against anything, so I wonder how you can consider it an argument at all.

Actually, the word 'guarantee' is so strong, that in fact you don't have any guarantee that the mercurial project will fork, or implode, or even that the next financial crisis would turn the world into a post-apocalyptic one similar to Mad Max before any of that is relevant. You don't have a guarantee of anything.

That's why unlike you; I didn't talk about guarantees, but 'chances', and chances are: the most active and successful project (git) will solve its issues faster than anyone else. I have seen that time and time again.

And at the time I wrote the article, I didn't even need to speculate, because the issues Google pointed were actually SOLVED at that point in time. So, no, Google was not correct. In fact, not only wasn't Google correct in 2011 with the benefit of hindsight, they weren't correct in 2008 as I explained some of their arguments were invalid.

And I mentioned; support for Git was one of the most wanted features, and they eventually did it. Most likely the only real reason they did mercurial first, was not any that they stated, but the fact that it was written in Python, so it was easier to port to their server tools; they mentioned something like that as a reason for the delay for Git support in their issue tracker.

And Git doesn't require any third party install, so that's inaccurate.

And yes, I mentioned in my blog post that I was biased, however, I can be biased and arrive to the right conclusion. So far, after 160 comments, nobody has managed to show that mercurial branches are as powerful as git ones, which suggests that my conclusion was correct.

Feel free to try to prove otherwise in my blog post, comments are open, and prepare to be refuted, like everybody else has been.

eslaught2• 15 years ago

I find it strange that he calls msysGit a good solution on Windows.

My personal Windows machine has Cygwin, MSYS (for MinGW), and MSVC's own command line (based on cmd.exe), so that I can use each of those three compilers for compatibility testing my projects. With msysGit my experience has not been good at all; patching git into each of the evironments always seems to require some manual work on my part, despite msysGit's claim that it can put just the git binaries on PATH.

So quite frankly, I do not think the current Windows situation for git is adequate, as it has (in my experience) integrated poorly with various command line environments.

andrewflnr• 15 years ago

That's strange. When I installed it a couple summers ago on Vista, it Just Worked. I didn't have Cygwin. Maybe a conflict?

eipipuz2• 15 years ago

Felipe Contreras, do you really not see your bias at selecting the example you chose? Paragraphs before you mention how in Mercurial "History is Sacred" then you push for that.

felipec8• 15 years ago

I did not mention "history is sacred", Google did, in his analysis.

And I didn't pick any example, as I clearly said; they are basically the same, the only real difference is in the way they deal with branches, and obviously, I concentrated on the difference.

natmaster• 15 years ago

Mercurial having an extension to make their branches like git is exactly why Mercurial is superior. I love git branches, but everything else about it is worse, but that's OK because I just use the extension like everyone else. Mercurial has great extensibility, which means if you need to do anything not simple, it lets you.

As they say, simple things should be simple, complex things should be possible. Mercurial is the best of both worlds.

felipec8• 15 years ago

No, there's no extension in mercurial that makes branches behave like git branches. That is clear in the 160 comments where I even created a challenge for anyone to try to do the same in mercurial, and curiously, people have criticized my videos, scripts, and every little thing possible, but none have actually shown how it's possible to do the same in mercurial.

So no, you can't do the same, that's the whole point. If you think you can, you are most likely mistaken, but feel free to show how in the comments of the blog, and expect a prompt rebuttal.

198d• 15 years ago

This was a really bad comparison/argument for git. Anyone actually trying to decide between the two should just forget everything you've read and start with a different source.

That aside, I've used both over the last 3 years (2 in git; 1 in hg) and although I prefer git, hg is a fantastic tool. I think the largest difference between the 2 is usability. I do believe hg is quite a bit easier to pick up. It does a really good job of, by default, making sure you don't shoot yourself in the foot and also keeps you further away from the 'nitty-gritty'. Git, on the other hand, allows you to do whatever you want and generally makes the assumption you always know what you're doing. The details are not very far down from the surface and it's easy to get yourself in trouble if you don't know what you're doing.

Personally I prefer git because I feel so close to the metal, but there's certainly a perfectly valid argument to choose hg over git.

Uchikoma• 15 years ago

Blog posts that use "crush" should not be taken serious.

Mercurial vs Git; it’s all in the branches

Related Stories