Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 03:37 +0100, Andrew John Hughes wrote: >> I just noticed this announcement when submitting the news announcement >> for 0.97.2. > > Thanks for doing 0.97.2. I see Michael Koch already pushed it into > Debian! > >> What do people think to the idea of switching? Maybe post 0.98? Mercurial is a disaster as far as I can see. It doesn't seem to be possible to work locally and merge back into the trunk without having to do a complex and error-prone three-way merge, and several times I've got into a state that it was impossible to recover from, even with the help of the best Mercurial experts we have at RH. The only way people work successfully is to merge from trunk, check in, and then push their changes immediately to the mater repo before someone else does any updates to the same files. If you don't get in fast enough, merge time. This approach doesn't scale at all. > I wouldn't object (although I don't really have trouble with CVS at this > point with classpath). So if enough developers think it is a positive > switch lets do it. We would be the second project on savannah though, so > expect some first adopter issues. > > The only thing we have to really look out for is doing a good > conversion, some experimentation with hg convert and/or tailor might be > necessary. > > Also a better understanding (best practices for) release branches would > be nice. I found the in-tree branching of mercurial somewhat confusing > at times, so it would be good to make sure we have clear guidelines for > those who want to do (release) branches on the tree would be nice. Indeed. The conversion of the history for gcc was done excellently with no loss of data. We must maks sure we do just as well. Andrew.
