Re: Reconsidering the work flow and how the SCM system fits in

[Richard Purdie <rpurdie@rpsys.net>]

On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 17:48 -0500, Mike Westerhof wrote:
> 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 that "hg" has the advantage that its name is only two
> characters, a 33% savings in overhead compared to most other scm tools
> we've discussed.

Agreed, some of the replies are just getting silly now :/.

> So, who makes this decision, and what's the timeframe?

Good question. We have a core team and I guess the first step would be
to put it to a vote there and see where we stand? I'm open to other
ideas and possibly to representations from non core team developers with
a case for a vote too. I would like to get this resolved quickly if we
can though.

Timeframe wise, I liked Holger's end of the month deadline for actually
doing things.

> Oh - btw, lightweight branching implies working, reliable tools to
> identify diffs and merge them, that's the part that really needs to be
> considered rather than how easy it is to just create a branch.

Agreed, although Holger has already compared git's merging capabilities
to monotone...

Cheers,

Richard