From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [216.145.245.197] (helo=mx01.dls.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JZZml-0006FC-Ke for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:51:02 +0100 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by mx01.dls.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JZZkh-0002n6-Li for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:48:51 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AtMail PHP 5.2 Message-ID: <1718.1205362131@dls.net> To: X-Origin: 209.242.5.110 Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:48:51 -0500 From: Mike Westerhof X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 216.145.245.197 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mwester@dls.net X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on serenity X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Tue, 21 Aug 2007 23:39:36 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on linuxtogo.org) Subject: Re: Reconsidering the work flow and how the SCM system fits in X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:51:02 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed 12/03/08 5:32 PM , Paul Sokolovsky pmiscml@gmail.com sent: > Hello, >=20 > On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:07:03 +0100 > "Leon Woestenberg" le > on.woestenberg@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello Paul, > >=20 > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:40 PM, Paul Sokolovsky pmiscml@gma > il.com>> wrote: > > > mirroring, but Monotone with its super-cool concept > of unbelievably> > cheap branches (so-called heads), make it just well > robust - even> > if > > > > > Multiple heads and lightweight branches are two > different things. > Probably also because of different numbers of hexadecimal digits? >=20 > >=20 > > A branch has a name/tag that tells me what is happening > in that branch> or who is making it happen. >=20 > And heads have head revision and change logs too! >=20 > >=20 > > In contrast, multiple heads does not help me in any way > as a tool for> branching, nor can I easily track someone else's work > in his "head". > That's because you've stuck with that old and boring concept of > "lightweight branches". People who grasped heads novelty enjoy it very > much. Well, the same can be said about the people who didn't drop > everything to endeavor into those "lightweight branches" - they enjoy > classy branches with not the lesser passion than the other two groups. >=20 >=20 > Well, but the talk was about mirroring and syncing potentially > incompatible changes. Do lightweight branches help with this? >=20 > >=20 > > Regards, > > --=20 > > Leon >=20 > [] >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Best regards, > Paul pmiscml@gma > il.com I think this has gotten to the point where the arguments is for the sake of= arguing, and little else. I'm surprised that it hasn't been mentioned tha= t "hg" has the advantage that its name is only two characters, a 33% saving= s in overhead compared to most other scm tools we've discussed. So, who makes this decision, and what's the timeframe? Mike (mwester) Oh - btw, lightweight branching implies working, reliable tools to identify= diffs and merge them, that's the part that really needs to be considered r= ather than how easy it is to just create a branch.