Mercurial vs Git

[Richard Laager]

On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 12:35 +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 5:56 AM, John Bailey <rekkanoryo at rekkanoryo.org> wrote:
> > On 01/19/2011 06:17 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> This is why it's possible in the linux kernel to have hundreds of maintainer
> >> repositories, each one with dozens of branches and patches coming from the
> >> branches of even more developers. Branches are merely a utility to identify
> >> commits.
> >
> > That's great for projects that operate in that manner, like the kernel.  For our
> > practices, I think a more "traditional" branching model where a branch is more
> > than just a floating reference is more appropriate.
> 
> Why? How exactly would a floating reference affect your project negatively?

It wouldn't. It's the lack of a non-floating branch identifier that John
doesn't like. Mercurial has both (bookmarks and branches); git only has
one.

> And you would see from which branch the commits came from:
> Merge branch 'rlaager-foo'
> https://github.com/ecoffey/pidgin-illustration/commit/6fc76c5bc9ac0929f7fd1e2e2d2fcb2840d394e1

I asked how you would tell for revision B1, B2, or B3, not for the A4
merge.

That said, I think your points about the inconsistencies are sound. Even
with MTN now, we can still end up with revisions on trunk that don't
have branch information, so I don't see any reason to worry about this
branching difference that much either way.

Richard
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://pidgin.im/pipermail/devel/attachments/20110120/42e99a71/attachment.sig>