question regarding mercurial

[Mohit Aron]

> Yes, I'm using local disk for workspace since compiling over the network
> is a
> no-no anyway (I'm on Windows XP client-wise, compiling with Visual
> Studio).
>

One can always setup one's workspace such that the code is on NFS, but the
binary files produced by the compiler go to the local disk. This setup is
quite fast and is what we used to have at Google. So the compiler is just
reading the code over NFS - which in most likelihood is cached in local RAM.



>
> In fact, I'm much more comfortable with Mercurial compared to Perforce
> regarding
> server harddisk crashes. BTW, database access over NFS is not supported by
> Perforce.
>

Not sure what you mean by database access - lots of companies use perforce
when the workspace is on NFS.



>
> Mercurial has built-in perfect replication and an excellent complete self
> consistency check ("hg verify") - thanks to the SHA1 checksums covering
> everything. If the "server" goes down you can pick another server to pull
> stuff
> you don't have and you can investigate project history offline using your
> local
> clone.
>
> I usually do a local commit a couple of times a day when I'm hacking on
> code
> and at least push that to a backup clone on another computer.
>


People obviously have different preferences - I'd much rather have NFS take
care of the replication automatically rather than me manually worrying about
it. Isn't that precisely the mercurial argument - one should be thinking
about code, not about version control and backups.

What I suggested (i.e., 'hg edit') would permit people like me to
effectively work over NFS. And mercurial could support it as an extension
such that people who don't want to use can continue to work in the existing
way.


- Mohit
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial/attachments/20080305/16d62015/attachment.htm