seth vidal wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 16:06 -0400, Michael DeHaan wrote:
seth vidal wrote:
but things can go away 'forever' and we still want them around.
You'd have the entire history in the last pull, right?
It seems like no matter which way I turn this around in my head we end
up having to have a complete copy of everything in fedora's pkg vcs to
reliably do what we need to do. Not to mention the issues of firewalls
and the buildsys talking to hosts in $not_okay_countries.
True. Hosting and pushing to a DVCS sounds better -- and it's not any
harder.
sounds like push down from upstream will be about the only thing we'll
be able to do w/o getting into a bunch of other issues.
I like this.
OT -- Mercurial has on a few occasions accepted a push that resulted in
the target repository losing history or merging in ways that I would
consider fundamentally wrong. I can't prove this, but we've seen it on
a few occasions enough to believe it wasn't user error. I figured I
should share that.
I really haven't had this need with git -- with hg, I did have to
recreate the repo on the server a few times. That might be a problem
for administration and needs a nice way to be automatically cleaned out
and repushed without pinging an admin, I think.
git has a bit too many commands and is not user friendly in a lot of
cases, but from a while using both, I prefer git.
-sv
_______________________________________________
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list
Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
_______________________________________________
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list
Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
