Monotone analysis

John Bailey rekkanoryo at
Wed Jul 9 12:33:21 EDT 2008

Luke Schierer wrote:
> I wouldn't mind switching now if 1)there were a clear benefit to doing
> so and 2)a degree of certainty that we won't be switching again in
> another couple years.  That being said, I don't think we want to throw
> away our work on trac _now_, so we'd want to make sure all the pieces
> were in place for trac integration _before_ the switch.
> Luke

I don't see any reason to switch at all (hmm, deja vu--I recall saying this
before the switch to svn).  Monotone does everything we need it to and then
some.  Any extra tools we would gain may make some things easier or nicer, but
they're just fluff--they're not *needed* to accomplish any task.

I certainly am against a change to ANY VCS or DVCS that doesn't support
microbranches in as simple-to-use a manner as mtn does.  Microbranches are
immensely useful, particularly when trying to introduce a daggy fix, as has been
discussed previously.  Sure, we do have a few more merges than are strictly
necessary, but it's not going to kill us.

Ease of use for outsiders isn't that big a deal.  We can always make an svn
clone of im.pidgin.pidgin public if it's that important to us, but that incurs
another maintenance cost that simply isn't worth it.  Monotone is not difficult
to use, particularly after reading the UsingPidginMonotone wiki page.  If people
want to complain about the size of the monotone database, I'd suggest they read
the previous post in this thread about the size of our old git repo and be
thankful mtn is better than that and that git has improved in the meantime.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the Devel mailing list