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

  • From: Oliver Tappe <zooey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 12:12:11 +0200

On 2011-05-14 at 07:40:52 [+0200], Niels Sascha Reedijk 
<niels.reedijk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[ ... ]
> In a similar fanboyism I would like to point out that the number in no
> sense represents an SVN revision number. 

That's correct. It's a distance, not a count.

> 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.

There's really no difference, you can't tell if any commit with a higher 
date/distance is indeed reachable from a commit with a lower date/distance ...

> 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'.

... because of this.

With the implementation we have for git, you can use the revision descriptor 
directly with the tool, i.e. 'git log haiku/master-4-g1234567' will give you 
a log from that revision. Does the same work for Mercurial with the 
descriptors you have suggested?

> 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.

Not at all, since the count of the changesets in the official branches are 
consistent across repositories, the revision numbers of Mercurial are not!

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

I disagree until you have convinced me that the descriptors implemented for 
Mercurial are directly usable on the commandline.


Other related posts: