Goodbye Mac OS Forge, hello GitHub

Kuba Ober kuba at
Thu Aug 25 17:13:13 PDT 2016

On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 4:11 AM, Joshua Root <jmr at> wrote:

> I share these concerns and brought them up during the discussions. And TBH
> I think Mercurial is a better tool. But we did come to a consensus that
> GitHub is overall the best choice at this time.

As I see it, mercurial doesn't have feature parity with git. E.g. I
consider the index to be an indispensable feature. Combine that with
smartgit and you've got a system that lets you check in lean, to-the-point
changes. It's an indispensable part of my workflow. First-class stashes
(not a bolt on) are another life-saver. I had an opportunity to port
repositories at work from subversion to either mercurial or git. After a
short evaluation, git became a no-brainer.

Yes, if all you're using in a workflow are mercurial features, then git
seems like an unnecessary complication, although it does have feature
parity with mercurial AFAIK. Once you start using all that git has to
offer, there's no going back - at least not for me. These days for
repositories that aren't monstrous (i.e. gigabytes worth of content), I use
git to access subversion repos as well.

> And as Mark mentioned, one of the advantages of a DVCS is that the full
> repository history isn't locked away on a single server, so if GitHub goes
> down or turns evil, we can easily pack up and go elsewhere. (This of
> applies to source code but not to things like issues, which is another good
> reason to keep them on our own server.)

Subversion repositories can be cloned with full history. An easy way to do
it is using git :)

I better don my Nomex now and slink away ;)

Cheers, Kuba Ober
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the macports-dev mailing list