"Justin Patrin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...]
> It looks like the original discussion is here: > http://projects.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/2008-March/004642.html > I haven't been reading my mail very carefully lately. > > The majority of complaints seem to be that "merge is broken". I > honestly can't understand this argument. Merge in monotone has > always been the part that makes the most sense to me. It seems > likely that the people who say that mtn's merge is broken are not > paying sufficient attention to what they're doing (such as > fragmenting history by copying files, then renaming back to the > original name). Most people seem to be having non-content > conflicts, which, I must agree, is a part of monotone that is > lacking in UI. Being able to suture 2 technically different > files/nodes into one in a merge would help a lot here. Also I suspect workspace-merge would be valued. > There also seems to be a want for cherry-picking, although I'm not > sure how this works in practice in other SCMs. Using pluck can > cherry-pick revisions just fine but it's just more likely to cause > non-content conflicts down the line. AFAIK GNU Arch and darcs have really different support for cherry-picking (and maybe subversion 1.5, if it's ever released). I think other systems do it much the same as monotone. With git this doesn't cause a problem with non-content conflicts, of course. > Still others appear to want to be able to merge local revisions into > one before pushing....although it sounds to me like this is more a > side-effect of how git works. Having used git for a few months now, I'd urge you not to dismiss this kind of thing. Depending on your workflow it can be enormously valuable, and I think I wouldn't want to give it up, now. Similarly git's way of doing branches (which lets you create a branch for a 10 minute reorganisation and then remove it when you're done, without worrying about its name clashing with anything else (because it's going to go))---both are very convenient. Not necessarily easily transplantable to monotone, but not merely side-effects of how git works. But yeah, that's how I'd summarise the issues reported: non-content conflicts awkward merging generally (presumably wanting workspace-merge) some (less clearly defined) annoyances with branches _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
