[haiku-development] Re: VOTE: Git or Mercurial (hg) as Haiku's new source control tool

  • From: Niels Sascha Reedijk <niels.reedijk@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 07:40:52 +0200


2011/5/14 Ryan Leavengood <leavengood@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Oliver Tappe <zooey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Ok, I finally found the time to implement a way of fetching somewhat useful
>> revisions from git repos.
>> They look like this (for a clean state, i.e. a revision from Haiku's repo):
>>        haiku/master-39382-g1234567
>> or like this (for a revision not available in Haiku's repo):
>>        haiku/master-39387-g7654321 [haiku/master-39382-g1234567]
>> or even like this (for a revision with changes in the working dir):
>>        haiku/master-39387-g7654321-dirty [haiku/master-39382-g1234567]
> So the second number is just a count of the commits, more or less?
> That might even match up with the SVN revisions in a git svn clone of
> our SVN repo.
> Those look really good to me. Can we just decide on Git and be done with it?

In a similar fanboyism I would like to point out that the number in no
sense represents an SVN revision number. It does not even point to a
fixed revision. In that sense a date is much more meaningful, because
it at least adds some temporality.

Explanation (letters refer to a changeset):

a - b - c - d -  h
      \ e - f - g /

Now I invite you to tell me whether haiku/master-4-g1234567 refers to
changeset 'd' or 'f'.

Furthermore, the number will never ever match up to the svn revision
numbers, because our revision number namespace is also used in the
buildtools and release-branches repository.

In other words, the count is as meaningful as the mercurial's local
revision number.

So, once again, it comes down to an aesthetic choice: do you like git or hg?


Other related posts: