On 10 June 2010 00:05, Kris Maglione <maglion...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 05:49:48PM -0500, Matthew Bauer wrote: >> >> Would Mercurial be considered suckless? >> >> I've always wondered why suckless projects use Mercurial instead of the >> standard git for version control that is used by most Linux projects. >> >> Isn't Git more simpler than Mercurial? > > Have you been eating wild mushrooms, or something? Whatever you may say > about git, simple it is most certainly not. Fast, maybe (though Mercurial is > comprable), written in C, yes (though Mercrial's code is simpler), made of a > collection of binaries (less and less) rather than plugins, alright. Simple? > No. Not simple. Not by any standard simple, except perhaps by that of CVS. > Have some ipecac and ask again.
Not to mention svn, which is much worse than CVS in any respect. I experienced the joy a while ago to compile a more recent svn from scratch with all dependencies. It was no fun and contained many surprises as its dependencies popped up. My verdict is: the svn developers seem to have created a big monster in order to keep their Google employment, I'd rather drive a review rather soon of those guys if I was in charge at Google. ;) Kind regards, Anselm
