On 5/3/12 12:09 , Nathan Gray wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Rich Pixley<rich.pixley@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
In hg, I don't have to think about how many other branches or repositories
there might be. I don't have to track where the changes are. And I don't
have to do anything to add another repository to the mix or to remove one.
Trivial merges are trivial. The view from any repository is identical, not
just symmetric. The things I want to do are all simple commands. Pull from
the cache, merge if necessary, do some work, push to the cache. Repeat as
necessary since there will be numerous collisions and merges since I'm
working on multiple machines concurrently. And eventually, push to central
server.
Wow, this hg sounds great! You should use that!
All kidding aside, what you're talking about are design decisions
based on preferred workflows. The workflow you're describing may seem
obvious and fantastic to you, but it sounds absurdly complicated to
me. You hate the way git handles remote branches. I think it's
incredibly sensible for a *truly* distributed VCS to enforce
location-based namespacing. Basically, we have differences of
opinion. Since your opinion seems to be that hg has done everything
right and git has done everything wrong, why are you using git?
Corporate mandate. Political decision made without discussion with the
people who would be using it.
--rich
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html