On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The question now devolves down to those people who commit into the > system. Do we use Git as the master repository and Mercurial as the > slave, or do we use Mercurial as the master repository and Git as the > slave? > > I propose second that we use Git as the master repository and Mercurial > as the slave, but allow committers to commit to either and auto-merge > in both directions.
Are there really people that will refuse to use Git to contribute? What is the advantage of having two write systems vs just have hg be a read-only mirror of Git? > Only clean merges will auto-commit. A failure will require manual > intervention using Git, which should be trivial to handle as all the > data will be in the Git staging and master branches. This would be one of the disadvantages -- having to deal with conflicts between replicants. If it is because of the tie we are trying to do this, I hear by change my vote: -1 hg +1 git Signed, Jason Watson
