From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rich Pixley Subject: Re: Newbie grief Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 12:16:10 -0700 Message-ID: <4FA2D97A.8090504@palm.com> References: <4F9F128C.5020304@palm.com> <201204302331.q3UNVo7o032303@no.baka.org> <4F9F3919.6060805@palm.com> <20120501111415.GD5769@thunk.org> <4FA02830.3040407@palm.com> <86havzoi8h.fsf@red.stonehenge.com> <4FA04D02.6090702@palm.com> <86mx5rmx32.fsf@red.stonehenge.com> <4FA055D0.7040102@palm.com> <86aa1rmvhb.fsf@red.stonehenge.com> <4FA05E9F.9090709@palm.com> <4FA2D1D7.3020807@palm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: PJ Weisberg , "Randal L. Schwartz" , Sitaram Chamarty , "Ted Ts'o" , Seth Robertson , "git@vger.kernel.org" To: Nathan Gray X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu May 03 21:16:21 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SQ1Vg-000352-G9 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 03 May 2012 21:16:16 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758176Ab2ECTQM (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 May 2012 15:16:12 -0400 Received: from smtp-relay2.palm.com ([64.28.152.243]:58467 "EHLO smtp-relay2.palm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755422Ab2ECTQL (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 May 2012 15:16:11 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,526,1330934400"; d="scan'208";a="13294914" Received: from unknown (HELO ushqusdns3.palm.com) ([148.92.223.90]) by smtp-relay2.palm.com with ESMTP; 03 May 2012 12:16:11 -0700 Received: from fuji.noir.com ([10.100.2.12]) by ushqusdns3.palm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q43JGA2I001171; Thu, 3 May 2012 12:16:10 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 5/3/12 12:09 , Nathan Gray wrote: > On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Rich Pixley 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