Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Mercurial vs Git

Filed under
Software

There are many blog posts and articles all over the Internet providing comparissons between Git and Mercurial. Most of them only briefly describe the main differences and then try to decide which one is better. However, I didn’t find many articles explaining the differences in detail from a neutral point of view and that’s what I’ll try to do here, also providing links to relevant documentation. For simple uses like a single user managing a private project, Git and Mercurial are equivalent. Their workflow differs a little due to the underlying differences, but their usage doesn’t seem to be very far apart. However, those differences start being noticeable when you collaborate with more users and, the more complex the project is, the more you will notice them. I will focus on four main aspects. Hopefully, this information could be useful to Mercurial users wanting to know how Git works and vice versa, as well as novice users who are not using either one yet. In that case, I suggest you to experiment a little bit with both instead of trying to make a theorical decision based on what you read in the documentation or in articles like this one.

  1. The repository structure, that is, how each one of them record changes and history.

  2. The noticeable differences in how they manage the branching process.
  3. Documentation.
  4. Their two popular hosting sites, GitHub and Bitbucket.

rest here




More in Tux Machines

Review: Ubuntu 15.04

Perhaps that’s a sign that it’s time for Canonical to take the opposite tack to Microsoft and move to less frequent releases, or at least less arbitrarily timetabled ones. Ubuntu is stable enough now not to need constant updating, and in this case waiting on the Linux 4 kernel would have made for a much more compelling release. Canonical’s engineers, meanwhile, could benefit from spending more time working on long-promised upgrades, and less time patching and polishing half-baked versions of things for a biannual release. If you’re looking for a free, friendly and powerful OS for desktops and servers, Ubuntu is still an easy Linux distribution to recommend. But even for established Ubuntu users this update is neither practically nor emotionally compelling. If Canonical seriously wants Ubuntu to make more of a mainstream impact, Ubuntu 15.04 – a barely necessary update rolled out to serve a timetable rather than a strategy – is precisely the sort of thing it needs to stop releasing. Read more

Parsix 8.0 Test 2 Is Based on Debian Testing and GNOME 3.16

Parsix GNU/Linux, a live and installation DVD based on the testing packages from the Debian project that's using GNOME as the desktop, is now at version 8.0 Test 2 and is ready for download and testing. Read more

Ubuntu MATE Will Offer a Choice Between Ubuntu Software Center and App Grid

Ubuntu MATE devs recently decided to remove the Ubuntu Software Center from the default installation. The decision was met with some resistance, but a lot of users expressed their support for the removal of the Ubuntu Software Center. Now, the team has explained what are they putting in its place. Read more

Remembering Nóirín Plunkett

Our thoughts are with everyone who loved Nóirín, everyone who worked with them, everyone who went to their talks or learned from their writing, everyone who met them at a conference, everyone for whom they made the open source and technical communities a better place. Read more