On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Kai Germaschewski < kai.germaschewski at unh.edu> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Lisandro Dalcin <dalcinl at gmail.com>wrote: > >> On 25 March 2010 01:14, Kai Germaschewski <kai.germaschewski at unh.edu> >> wrote: >> > Fine with me (I'm the one who introduced it originally). >> > >> > My off-topic 2 cents: I hate reply-to headers. >> > >> >> BTW, I think this is an example of bad usage of mercurial branches... >> You should use a separate clone for these kind of tasks. Mercurial >> branches would make more sense for release versus development, >> although even PETSc does not uses this model. IMHO, creating a branch, >> push some fixes, merge back to default, and close branch is just >> repository pollution. >> > > I actually disagree on this. The ts-fixes branch was a separate clone in > the beginning, actually. I did go through the efforts of separating this > into a sequence of patches, instead of having one "this one patch fixes all > approach", and whereas maybe for that particular case it could be considered > overkill, in general I consider it highly useful to break up changes into > pieces that can actually be verified by looking at them. > > So the way I see it, there are basically three ways to merge a change like > this (or any which is a sequence of patches) into the main repo: > > 1) do them in a separate branch, then merge that branch (and close the > branch, which I didn't but should have (mercurial used to not even support > this, a major shortcoming...) > 2) do them as a sequence on the top of head directly. Unfortunately, that > goes wrong if someone else changes head while working on the sequence of > patches. In that case, you end up with two branches which will merge with a > merge changeset. That's effectively the same thing as 1), branching and > joining, except that the branch doesn't have an explicit name, but I don't > really see the difference. If you guys don't like the explicit naming, I can > certainly adapt to that... > 3) Just import the patch (with some manual trickery) into head as a single > changeset -- for obvious reasons, I don't think this is a good way, and > history is lost. > > Both 1) and 2) have the disadvantage of introducing potentially lots of > merge changesets if development goes on for a while while head moves, too, > and one keeps the branch in sync. git handles this case by doing a "rebase" > instead of "merge" which keeps one's development clean (but one needs to be > careful with distributing things along the way, as history gets rewritten.) > I do not understand what distinction is being made here. Doing a clone is cleaner than doing a branch, and I see no real benefit from the branch. Is there any? > Anyway, this probably shouldn't lead to a git vs hg discussion, but I've > used mercurial as my main tool for various things for quite a while, and > recently learned more about git, and for me it solves a lot of the annoying > little things I kept running into with hg. Including having a gui that let's > you go through changes before commiting them, and separating them, so you > don't need to do "can't remember what the heck I changed -- I wish mercurial > had a frontend like bk" commits. (By the way, even for hg there's "hg diff" > and "hg diff | diffstat" which helps...) I used to work on the linux kernel > with bk, so it's probably no surprise that git seems to support the kind of > workflow I'm used to, though... > hg qct Matt > --Kai > > > > > -- > Kai Germaschewski > Assistant Professor, Dept of Physics / Space Science Center > University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824 > office: Morse Hall 245F > phone: +1-603-862-2912 > fax: +1-603-862-2771 > > -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20100325/a62297a3/attachment.html>