On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Andrew McCreight <amccrei...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Kartikaya Gupta <kgu...@mozilla.com> > wrote: > > > I've tried using cinnabar a couple of times now and the last time I > > tried, this was the dealbreaker for me. My worfklow often involves > > moving a branch from one machine to another and the extra hassle that > > results from mismatched SHAs makes it much more complicated than it > > needs to be. gecko-dev doesn't have this problem as it has a canonical > > upstream that works much more like a regular git user expects. > > > > For what it is worth, I regularly pull from one machine to another with > git-cinnabar, and it works just fine without any problems from mismatched > SHAs. For me, the switch from a clone of gecko-dev to git-cinnabar has been > totally transparent. > +1. The non-stable SHA problem was solved a long time ago. Same goes for any big performance issues. In my experience, cinnabar is pretty darn transparent. https://github.com/mozilla/gecko is effectively the canonical repo people are talking about. I sometimes pull that, but git-cinnabar is fast enough that it works fine to just clone the hg repo directly. If it weren't for the occasional annoyance of mapping commits between local revs and hg.m.o links, I would basically forget that the core infrastructure is running hg. bholley > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
