From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:42472 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755237AbZLCH5A (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Dec 2009 02:57:00 -0500 Message-ID: <4B177120.6090900@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:04:48 +0100 From: Hans de Goede MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Patrick Boettcher CC: Linux Media Mailing List Subject: Re: Replace Mercurial with GIT as SCM References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: +1 for git, I really really really miss being able to do a simple "git rebase", and no rebase is not evil not as long as you don't use it for anything but local patches. Regards, Hans On 12/01/2009 03:59 PM, Patrick Boettcher wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to start a discussion which ideally results in either > changing the SCM of v4l-dvb to git _or_ leaving everything as it is > today with mercurial. > > To start right away: I'm in favour of using GIT because of difficulties > I have with my "daily" work with v4l-dvb. It is in my nature do to > mistakes, so I need a tool which assists me in fixing those, I have not > found a simple way to do my stuff with HG. > > I'm helping out myself using a citation from which basically describes > why GIT fits the/my needs better than HG (*): > > "The culture of mercurial is one of immutability. This is quite a good > thing, and it's one of my favorite aspects of gnu arch. If I commit > something, I like to know that it's going to be there. Because of this, > there are no tools to manipulate history by default. > > git is all about manipulating history. There's rebase, commit amend, > reset, filter-branch, and probably other commands I'm not thinking of, > many of which make it into day-to-day workflows. Then again, there's > reflog, which adds a big safety net around this mutability." > > The first paragraph here describes exactly my problem and the second > descibes how to solve it. > > My suggestion is not to have the full Linux Kernel source as a new base > for v4l-dvb development, but "only" to replace the current v4l-dvb hg > with a GIT one. Importing all the history and everything. > > Unfortunately it will change nothing for Mauro's job. > > I also understand that it does not give a lot to people who haven't used > GIT until now other than a new SCM to learn. But believe me, once you've > done a rebase when Mauro has asked you to rebuild your tree before he > can merge it, you will see what I mean. > > I'm waiting for comments. > > Thanks, > > (*) > http://www.rockstarprogrammer.org/post/2008/apr/06/differences-between-mercurial-and-git/ > > > -- > > Patrick > http://www.kernellabs.com/ > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html