Talk:Mercurial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as Low-importance).
 

Footnotes[edit]

Aren't footnotes broken? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blazar (talkcontribs).

Depends on what you mean "broken". The article currently mixes footnotes and enumerated external links, so that could've confused you (external links have the square and arrow image whereas footnotes do not).
Or maybe it was just that the article used an old footnote syntax that is not favored any more. (I converted to the newer <ref></ref> syntax now) -- intgr 18:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

User list[edit]

I think the list of users is getting out of hand; the article probably doesn't need to mention more than five major users. The rest could either be moved to a stand-alone list, or deleted.

At first estimation, i think the projects that would be useful to mention in the article are Java, Mozilla, OpenSolaris, and Xen. Comments? --Piet Delport 22:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Keep the five aforementioned and throw away the rest, it's of little use to Wikipedia. -- intgr #%@! 23:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, done. I've backed each of them with citations to the relevant announcements/evaluations. --Piet Delport 02:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


I don't believe Pidgin is using Mercurial - current development uses Monotone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.4.209 (talk) 06:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Absurdity[edit]

"It has been ported to Windows, Mac OS X, and most Unix-like systems." No it hasn't - it was written first on one of these systems, then ported to the others. The sentence should read something like "It was written on Linux, then ported to Windows, Mac OS X, and other Unix-like systems". AMackenzie (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

So fix it; Wikipedia is a wiki. -- intgr [talk] 23:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough! Was Mercurial, in fact, first written on Linux? AMackenzie (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Matt Mackall is a Linux kernel hacker; Mercurial was supposed to be one of the contestants to git's current place. -- intgr [talk] 16:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed! AMackenzie (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

citation? - SridharRatnakumar (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
lol xD 213.48.14.66 (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Kernel.org Offers Both Git And Mercurial[edit]

While Git is the primary DRCS for the Linux Kernel, Mercurial repositories are also kept in sync. See this repository , or btrfs development. It might be worth mentioning in this article. Tinkertim (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes however all the actual development occurs using git, I haven't heard of Linus merging any mercurial branches into his tree, with this kind of logic you may as well say that tarballs and patches are kept in sync with the primary git tree for every snapshot and release candidate. Tuxcantfly (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"History" section would be more appropriately called "git success story" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janislaw (talkcontribs) 09:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary cutoff between "Major projects" and "Others" in "Projects Using Mercurial"?[edit]

The distinction between major projects and others seems rather arbitrary and a rather unnecessary potential source of conflict - ie the perceived notability of Netbeans ("others") or Xen ("major") depends on whether you're asking a Java developer or virtualization expert. Wouldn't it be more logical to simply have a straight list going in order of a more objective metric of "notability", ie lines of code, numbers of users, number of active contributers, number of commits, years of active development, or something like that? Tuxcantfly (talk)

Additional external link[edit]

Thoughts on adding Joel Spolsky's tutorial? Emurphy42 (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. -- intgr [talk] 17:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Syntax Similarities to Git[edit]

It seems like the mercurial command syntax is much like that of git (albeit simpler). Should that be in the article? Mr. Man (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

They both resemble Monotone's interface. Why Git should be mentioned? 91.185.59.181 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC).

Influences[edit]

It says it was written after the free version of Bitkeeper was withdrawn, but it doesn't say if it was modeled on or inspired by Bitkeeper. The article should say more about the prior systems that influenced this system. (The Git article has a good section on this.) I would write it myself, but I don't know enough. (I've never used either BitKeeper, Git, or Mercurial.) —MiguelMunoz (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Mercurial project down?[edit]

http://mercurial.selenic.com/ is timing out, and this post from Dec 11 by Eric S. Raymond intimates something's happened to the Mercurial project. Any information? - David Gerard (talk) 12:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, websites go down sometimes and it's back up now. I think you're reading too much into it.
ESR's comment is a response on the groff list [1] to people who prefer Mercurial or Bazaar admit defeat and now advocate for git due to its popularity. Regardless, I'm sure Mercurial will stick around for a long time still. -- intgr [talk] 22:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw it was back up. Never mind me :-) - David Gerard (talk) 08:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)