On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > On Jan 9, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > >> Libmesh just moved to github as well. >> >> I think if you carefully consider the branching model, it has a clear >> advantage over everything else. Dusty Phillips put it nicely in his recent >> blog post [1]: >> >> Git branches are simple and elegant. Mercurial branches are? well, it >> depends what kind of branch you want. You do know what kind of branch you >> want, right? > > Branches are the work of the devil and should be avoided at all cost :-) > >> >> Fortunately, his project "gitifyhg" is now usable. [2] >> >> As for consensus shifting towards git, I know only a few people that have >> used both seriously and still prefer Hg. Meanwhile, there are a ton of >> serious Python folks that prefer git (Lisandro, Andy Terrel, SciPy, NumPy, >> PyClaw, etc). >> >> [1] >> http://archlinux.me/dusty/2012/12/18/four-ways-to-do-local-lightweight-git-style-branches-in-mercurial/ >> [2] http://archlinux.me/dusty/2013/01/06/gitifyhg-rewritten/ >> > > 1) If Satish and you can come up with (or point me to) a mapping from my > current hg workflow (which is pretty dang simple-minded) to how I would do > things correctly in Git (and I am satisfied with that mapping) and
I want to be in the same room with you when you first run `git add`. > 2) There is a way to translate our current hg repository to git without > losing information and Well, that's trivial. > 3) We can continue to use bitbucket more or less that same way as now (or is > there a reason to shift to github and it has decent "project" support?)? Bitbucket finally added comment-on-a-line-of-the-commit and "teams" for projects. What more is there left that you'd like to see?
