[oe] Git versus Hg

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Cliff Brake schreef:

| Mercurial looks very interesting and nice in many aspects, but I have
| not used it yet.  It seems to me one of the fundamental differences is
| the concept of cheap/easy local branches.  Mercurial is working on
| something like that
| (http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/LocalBranches), but
| it is obviously not central to its philosophy like git .  The idea of
| creating many local branches a normal port of your development
| workflow seems unique to git.  As the gitmagic link below states, it
| makes it very easy to switch context to fix a bug, and then resume
| work on another feature.  This is a lot more than just "being good at
| generating patches"; it is a change in the way we work.

I can see how that's a good thing for what I call "traditional
application development" where a bunch of source files get compiled into
a single application (kernel, u-boot, xserver etc) where working on
multiple things at once doesn't work, since it makes building and
testing a nightmare. Easy branching solves that.

But OE isn't like that, it's a collection of build descriptions, which
makes it possible to be working on a 1000 different recipes at the same
time. This also is one of the reasons why mtn is so slow for us: lots of
files with a shortlived life spam and ±30 commits per day.

I like hg so much because it's the svn to monotones cvs: virtually
identical UI, without the crap.

regards,

Koen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFH1+h9MkyGM64RGpERAjc6AKCF0CIEIJml44MVR8xhuCxw4PwHIACfSnMh
rMWrhQTsv+0T6E6f7qWDT8U=
=lmbo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----