From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262302AbVF1XsP (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:48:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262300AbVF1Xq3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:46:29 -0400 Received: from simmts12.bellnexxia.net ([206.47.199.141]:22462 "EHLO simmts12-srv.bellnexxia.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262289AbVF1Xho (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:37:44 -0400 Message-ID: <1765.10.10.10.24.1120001856.squirrel@linux1> In-Reply-To: <40A9C7C2-1AFE-45BC-90A5-571628304479@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> Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:37:36 -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 7:25 pm, Kyle Moffett said: > On Jun 28, 2005, at 18:59:28, Sean wrote: >> By the sounds of it, git could just use Mecurial or some variation >> thereof >> as a back end. > > Umm, you seem to miss the point, sir. If you use Mercurial, there is no > reason you should layer any part of Git on top of it. It already does > everything that git does anyways. No, you seem to miss the point. Git already does everything Mercurial does, and does it pretty well too. The _point_ was that if the big "feature" of Mercurial is it's on disk format, Git is perfectly capable of copying it at any point. The on disk format just ISN'T CLOSE TO BEING THE MOST IMPORTANT THING AT THE MOMENT. > >> Git is already so much better for the things I do than BK ever was, >> I'll >> stick with it. > > This is like saying "Windows 3.1 is already so much better for the > things > I do than DOS ever was, I'll stick with it." :-D Yes, so what's your point? Mercurial is trying to solve a problem that is already perfectly well handled for me by Git. Therefore I have _zero_ motivation to direct my efforts elsewhere. Cheers, Sean