From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261365AbVF2A1Z (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:27:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262248AbVF2A1D (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:27:03 -0400 Received: from simmts5.bellnexxia.net ([206.47.199.163]:63177 "EHLO simmts5-srv.bellnexxia.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262222AbVF2AZH (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:25:07 -0400 Message-ID: <2661.10.10.10.24.1120004702.squirrel@linux1> In-Reply-To: <40A4071C-ED45-4280-928F-BCFC8761F47E@mac.com> References: <42B9E536.60704@pobox.com> <20050623235634.GC14426@waste.org> <20050624064101.GB14292@pasky.ji.cz> <20050624123819.GD9519@64m.dyndns.org> <20050628150027.GB1275@pasky.ji.cz> <20050628180157.GI12006@waste.org> <62CF578B-B9DF-4DEA-8BAD-041F357771FD@mac.com> <3886.10.10.10.24.1119991512.squirrel@linux1> <20050628221422.GT12006@waste.org> <3993.10.10.10.24.1119997389.squirrel@linux1> <20050628224946.GU12006@waste.org> <4846.10.10.10.24.1119999568.squirrel@linux1> <40A9C7C2-1AFE-45BC-90A5-571628304479@mac.com> <1765.10.10.10.24.1120001856.squirrel@linux1> <40A4071C-ED45-4280-928F-BCFC8761F47E@mac.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:25:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Mercurial vs Updated git HOWTO for kernel hackers From: "Sean" To: "Kyle Moffett" Cc: "Matt Mackall" , "Petr Baudis" , "Christopher Li" , "Jeff Garzik" , "Linux Kernel" , "Git Mailing List" , mercurial@selenic.com User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.4-2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, June 28, 2005 8:08 pm, Kyle Moffett said: > Firstly, no need to shout, we can all hear you :-D. ok > > Git and Mercurial have all of the same core functionality. The only > significant remaining difference is that Mercurial uses 1/20th the > network bandwidth and disk space. If you happen to be interested in > that advantage (as I am, due to my aging equipment and poor internet > connection), then there are two options: (1) fix git, or (2) just use > Mercurial. From my point of view, option 2 is much more productive. > You may (and probably do) have different priorities and requirements > than I do, but in my view, Mercurial is an excellent tool. well the feature set for both are changing rapidly. i like the emphasis placed on functionality over performance shown by the git developers (not that git is slow, it's _way_ faster than bk ever was). also the web interface that i looked at for mecurial (admittedly four or fivve weeks back) didn't come close to gitweb. and the work done by jon seymour and others on the history lineralization is just great. it's something bk lacked and was always a thorn in my side. > Actually, Mercurial solved some of the problems first, before git did; > distributed merge is one example that comes to mind. In any case, I'm > not trying to tell you what to use, I'm just pointing out alternatives > that are available and explaining why I like them, in case you haven't > seen them or tried them before. there will be a price to pay if the linux community fragments over choice of scm. the good news is that we're no longer locked into the whims of some proprietary system. so it should be straight forward for those who choose any tool to work with those who've chosen another. this is already evidenced by the fact that the git repository is pulled and re-exeported with mecurial. anyway, all the best, just wish you guys would spend less time trying to convert git users and more time advancing your own tool. sean From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Sean" Subject: Re: Mercurial vs Updated git HOWTO for kernel hackers Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:25:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <2661.10.10.10.24.1120004702.squirrel@linux1> References: <42B9E536.60704@pobox.com> <20050623235634.GC14426@waste.org> <20050624064101.GB14292@pasky.ji.cz> <20050624123819.GD9519@64m.dyndns.org> <20050628150027.GB1275@pasky.ji.cz> <20050628180157.GI12006@waste.org> <62CF578B-B9DF-4DEA-8BAD-041F357771FD@mac.com> <3886.10.10.10.24.1119991512.squirrel@linux1> <20050628221422.GT12006@waste.org> <3993.10.10.10.24.1119997389.squirrel@linux1> <20050628224946.GU12006@waste.org> <4846.10.10.10.24.1119999568.squirrel@linux1> <40A9C7C2-1AFE-45BC-90A5-571628304479@mac.com> <1765.10.10.10.24.1120001856.squirrel@linux1> <40A4071C-ED45-4280-928F-BCFC8761F47E@mac.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: mercurial@selenic.com, Petr Baudis , Linux Kernel , Jeff Garzik , Git Mailing List X-From: mercurial-bounces@selenic.com Wed Jun 29 02:18:34 2005 Return-path: Received: from waste.org ([216.27.176.166]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DnQHL-0006ym-23 for gcvmd-mercurial@gmane.org; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 02:18:11 +0200 Received: from waste.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by waste.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id j5T0P99A002775; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:25:10 -0500 Received: from simmts5-srv.bellnexxia.net (simmts5.bellnexxia.net [206.47.199.163]) by waste.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id j5T0P8Qj002730; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:25:08 -0500 Received: from linux1 ([69.156.137.160]) by simmts5-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.10 201-253-122-130-110-20040306) with ESMTP id <20050629002502.PAHR11606.simmts5-srv.bellnexxia.net@linux1>; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:25:02 -0400 Received: from linux1 (linux1.attic.local [127.0.0.1]) by linux1 (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j5T0P1Ha019002; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:25:01 -0400 Received: from 10.10.10.24 (SquirrelMail authenticated user sean) by linux1 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:25:02 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <40A4071C-ED45-4280-928F-BCFC8761F47E@mac.com> To: "Kyle Moffett" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.4-2 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new X-BeenThere: mercurial@selenic.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: mercurial.selenic.com List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: mercurial-bounces@selenic.com Errors-To: mercurial-bounces@selenic.com On Tue, June 28, 2005 8:08 pm, Kyle Moffett said: > Firstly, no need to shout, we can all hear you :-D. ok > > Git and Mercurial have all of the same core functionality. The only > significant remaining difference is that Mercurial uses 1/20th the > network bandwidth and disk space. If you happen to be interested in > that advantage (as I am, due to my aging equipment and poor internet > connection), then there are two options: (1) fix git, or (2) just use > Mercurial. From my point of view, option 2 is much more productive. > You may (and probably do) have different priorities and requirements > than I do, but in my view, Mercurial is an excellent tool. well the feature set for both are changing rapidly. i like the emphasis placed on functionality over performance shown by the git developers (not that git is slow, it's _way_ faster than bk ever was). also the web interface that i looked at for mecurial (admittedly four or fivve weeks back) didn't come close to gitweb. and the work done by jon seymour and others on the history lineralization is just great. it's something bk lacked and was always a thorn in my side. > Actually, Mercurial solved some of the problems first, before git did; > distributed merge is one example that comes to mind. In any case, I'm > not trying to tell you what to use, I'm just pointing out alternatives > that are available and explaining why I like them, in case you haven't > seen them or tried them before. there will be a price to pay if the linux community fragments over choice of scm. the good news is that we're no longer locked into the whims of some proprietary system. so it should be straight forward for those who choose any tool to work with those who've chosen another. this is already evidenced by the fact that the git repository is pulled and re-exeported with mecurial. anyway, all the best, just wish you guys would spend less time trying to convert git users and more time advancing your own tool. sean