FW: mercuria destroys everyone's work
Philippe.FLORENT at edenred.com
Wed Jan 20 01:39:05 CST 2016
> 3. Person A has "deadlines" for his "production environment" so rather than using Mercurial for merges, he sends Person B patches
Well no, as I said we did not change our ways, and still followed regular pull -> merge/commit -> push
The only thing I found to resolve this is to use noautomerge in the hgrc file (or something) … still have to test it
The problem is that the only free alternative is GIT… no way I’ll use this overly complicated package
From: Benjamin Fritz [mailto:fritzophrenic at gmail.com]
Sent: mardi 19 janvier 2016 16:17
To: FLORENT Philippe
Cc: mercurial at selenic.com
Subject: Re: mercuria destroys everyone's work
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 1:35 AM, FLORENT Philippe <Philippe.FLORENT at edenred.com<mailto:Philippe.FLORENT at edenred.com>> wrote:
> After a few months of usage, we thought we tamed the beast
> We thought installing our reps on a windows share had solved many issues
> Well, no we still loose code and hours of work
> countless hours repairing the new code that mercurial discarded in favour of older code without asking
> Countless hours repairing/recreating our repositories when they just crash for no reason, us unable to push our new commits
> We did not change the way we work with it, and after a month of “””correct””” behavior, the whole thing once again get completely messed up
> I officialy renounce, this package is an unstable and clearly not suited for a prod environement
For some missing context, assuming this is the same person who posted a few times to the TortoiseHg list (I knew the name was familiar), this is how I understood his workflow at the time:
1. Person A and Person B start with shared history.
2. Person A and Person B both hack away for a really long time without merging or pushing.
3. Person A has "deadlines" for his "production environment" so rather than using Mercurial for merges, he sends Person B patches.
4. At some point Person A wants to merge Person B's work.
5. Person A really doesn't like the look of 3-way merge tools. Person A would prefer a 2-way merge because the "base revision" concept is confusing somehow.
6. At some point merge tools are discarded entirely in favor of manually copy-pasting or something...or at least I think that's what I read.
7. Person A gets frustrated when Mercurial "loses work" or "includes functions twice" in the resulting merge.
I assume the "destroyed work" being referred to in this thread is related. In TortoiseHg I'm referring to:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mercurial