I use git day to day. I use hg primarily for landing code and "hg bzepxort".
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:48 AM, Gregory Szorc <g...@mozilla.com> wrote: > I > I'm interested in knowing how people feel about these "hidden hg" tools. > Is going through a hidden, local hg bridge seamless? Satisfactory? Barely > tolerable? A horrible pain point? (I noticed some of the hg interactions in > moz-git-tools aren't optimal. If these are important tools, please ping me > off list so I can help you improve them.) > I use some older scripts nick hurley wrote to push to try from git.. they are basically the same model - hidden local hg bridge. I've always been too cowardly to use them to push to anything more than try, but I do rely on them heavily for that purpose. They work but are awkward and often take a long time before figuring out I need a git fetch --all for them to find the right context to push on. There is some tolerable pain. Nonetheless I'm thrilled to have them! I use git format-patch and import patches into an hq queue and push them to inbound when I'm really landing things. I do something similar to upload patches to bugzilla. Just the other day I got burnt for the first time by having two separate workflows - I pushed the wrong patch from an hg queue to inbound that didn't match my try-certified patch in git. It was operator error - but it wouldn't have happened if I had just one branch named with that bug # :) Overall, how happy are you with your Git fetch/push workflows? Short of > switching the canonical repositories to Git, what do you need to be more > productive? > > I'd like to be able to push to git. _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
