On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 6:18 AM, Robert Wohlrab <robert.wohl...@gmx.de> wrote: > Riccardo Iaconelli wrote: >> Hi, >> so, to recap from last two immense threads (not counting KOffice one >> now), seems like we're stuck between two situations: >> >> - Not splitting the main modules. Would work great but will fail once >> we try to move stuff between the modules (I still think that this is >> not a huge usecase but.. okay) >> - Splitting the main modules. Then we're doomed in a mess of >> dependencies, repos, metarepos, and so on. Distros like slackware >> won't forgive us, KDE developer groups (e.g. kdeedu) will hate us, and >> personally I'm not a big fan of it either. >> >> This looks like a dead end to me. >> >> So, what are we doing now? Giving up on git and telling people to just >> screw up and use git-svn? Think more? Hire someone to make a better >> git? Or what? >> Does anybody have concrete suggestions, comments, or anything else? > > No, we should try mercurial. I don't know why everyone is so "git"ish and > still everybody here hates it. So if there are problems involved in the git > stuff then search for a solution and I think the solution is mercurial with > its narrow clones. Just keep _everything_ in hg and we have atomic moves, tags > etc. > > And look for example at googles analysis of git vs. mercurial.... mercurial is > just superior to git.
I seriously doubt a narrow clone is all that usable. It kind of breaks the semantics of how any DVCS would work. Actually the Hg website says specifically not to do this. [http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/UnderstandingMercurial#What_Mercurial_can.27t_do] Ian _______________________________________________ Kde-scm-interest mailing list Kde-scm-interest@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-scm-interest