Thoughts on Mercurial and Git

[Eric St-Jean]

Theodore Tso wrote:
> On another point, I'm curious.  Does your overlay patch allow for a
> user to create an overlay, and then make changes in the overlay, and
> then later, after new changes are pulled from mainline into "base",
> and then when the overlay pulls from the base, to use the new changes
> from the base?  Or is that once you have made changes in the overlay,
> that all changes must be appended to the overlay, even if that means
> you are copying them from the original base repository of the overlay?
> The overlay patch could have been implemented either way, and I'm not
> sure how it was done.
>   
i'm fairly new to hg, so i've been wondering about how this "should" be
done, as well... it seems that mq is how, and that you delete the patch
once you've pulled the equivalent changeset... or delete the whole branch.

on the git/hg gateway thing, wouldn't it be nice if, having both
installed on my machine, i could just hg clone a git repo, and it would
just "do the right thing" on the clone, and then on the subsequent
push/pull's???

isn't that what we ultimately want???
> Hmm, thinking this some more, I guess this would be my one true
> "complaint" about Hg.  Git just seems architecturally cleaner, in
> terms of being able to handle overlay repositories and local branches
> in a much cleaner way, without needing special cases.  That doesn't
> mean that Hg shouldn't try to do it, but that it will probably be more
> difficult for Hg to add these features than it was for git.  But
> that's a technological aesthetics argument, not a
> feature/functionality or performance argument.
>   


-- 
Eric St-Jean
Systems Architect
______________________________________
Jeppesen Commercial & Military Aviation
Making Every Mission Possible