From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [72.29.79.205] (helo=rhodos.klever.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IdRBp-0002Gh-At for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:56:34 +0200 Received: from pd953ad30.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([217.83.173.48] helo=olympus.klever.net) by rhodos.klever.net with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IdR6g-0007IN-HJ for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:51:14 +0200 Message-ID: <4704EFCE.6040407@klever.net> Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:51:10 +0200 From: Michael Krelin User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070815) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org References: <1191494488.2516.34.camel@toontown> <4704CC05.40206@klever.net> <1191502502.2516.39.camel@toontown> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: monotone/git (was hello...) 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: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 13:56:34 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > this will be my only to this topic but I see that as following: Why won't you clarify your points? > git: > cons: > - Incompats with other versions What do you mean? > - repacking (even if probably all known races are fixed) That's not a contra if we compare with monotone. > - shell mess with bashism and GNUism Very true and, likely to be a show-stopper, anyway. > - still complicated to use Well, if you use the monotone subset of git, it's not ;-) > - Does not track directories Is it a problem with OE? > mtn: > cons: > - Speed on rev pulling (I think mtn ls and status, diff is quite fast) > - we can not easily merge the dreambox branch (this is why I wrote > mtn2git) Aha, now I know the script exists :-) > pros: > + trust (I don't feel like remembering the latest over night) Can you elaborate on the expression in parentheses? > + awesome manual I wouldn't call it awesome when it goes beyond trivialities, but I don't think it's a problem with either SCM. > + trusting the code base (git is catching up, Linus is a god... > but...) Well, OE relies on git codebase indirectly anyway ;-) > + certs attachable to revs > + attributes and other testresults are attachable to files and it > is on my todolist to use them > + tracks directories > + portable > > > The last three/four reasons are the one why I would propose to stay > with mtn as the main repository. I'm also working on a git2mtn script > (after having merged the dreambox branch) which could make git a > (semi) supported system for OE (if someone will host it). The bottom line is - we're not going to move anytime soon. And I agree it makes sense. I'm yet to see what are these attributes and other testresults attachable to files (sounds interesting), but I'm a bit afraid of your idea of (ab)using it, since that may make us get stuck with mtn in the future no matter what. Love, H