Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 4:42 AM, Russel Winder wrote: > On Sun, 2016-11-27 at 14:11 -0500, Jonathon Reinhart wrote: >> > The point here is that someone can mutate a branch locally and then >> >> force it to the mainline. >> >> No, that is specifically what protected branches

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

On Nov 28, 2016 10:42, "Russel Winder" wrote: > > On Sun, 2016-11-27 at 14:11 -0500, Jonathon Reinhart wrote: > > Personally, I find the rewriting extremely powerful for my local > > development - I can re-arrange, split, and join commits in my feature > > branch before it

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

On Sun, 2016-11-27 at 14:11 -0500, Jonathon Reinhart wrote: > > The point here is that someone can mutate a branch locally and then > > force it to the mainline. > > No, that is specifically what protected branches prevent. If "master" > is > protected, then no one, not even an admin, can

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

> The point here is that someone can mutate a branch locally and then force it to the mainline. No, that is specifically what protected branches prevent. If "master" is protected, then no one, not even an admin, can re-write history and force push to it. Personally, I find the rewriting

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

On Sun, 2016-11-27 at 12:39 +0100, rupert THURNER wrote: Absolutely no reason to apologise for contributing. > sorry for posting here, i usually just lurk on this list because i am > interested in build tools. i doubt that mercurial will die out - > their > mailing list seems more busy than

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Russel Winder wrote: > On Fri, 2016-11-25 at 18:42 -0500, Jonathon Reinhart wrote: > > Dirk Bächle writes: > > > > > I *don't* want the history in my repos to be mutable... > > > > All of the major Git hosting providers

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

On Fri, 2016-11-25 at 18:42 -0500, Jonathon Reinhart wrote: > Dirk Bächle writes: > > > I *don't* want the history in my repos to be mutable... > > All of the major Git hosting providers have *protected branches* > which are > immutable. But isn't that a red herring? Git

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

Dirk Bächle writes: > I *don't* want the history in my repos to be mutable... All of the major Git hosting providers have *protected branches* which are immutable. ___ Scons-dev mailing list Scons-dev@scons.org

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

Dirk Bächle writes: > I *don't* want the history in my repos to be mutable...maybe that's > why git doesn't seem to be so more powerful than hg to me, and why I > still consider them to be "on par" regarding functionality. At least > for the work I have to do with them... For

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

Russel Winder wrote: > There was a flurry of activity about potentially switching from > Mercurial to Git at the beginning of the year. The topic seems to have > died down. Can I assume that this means Mercurial won the debate and > that we will not be switching from Mercurial to Git – even

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

Sorry...¨twice as many¨, duh. Dirk Am 12. Mai 2016 11:12:19 MESZ, schrieb Dirk Baechle : >+1 from me for the idea of a git mirror...like this we could have both >worlds combined. And we would see twice as much contributions as >before. ;) > >Dirk > > >Am 12. Mai 2016 09:27:12

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

+1 from me for the idea of a git mirror...like this we could have both worlds combined. And we would see twice as much contributions as before. ;) Dirk Am 12. Mai 2016 09:27:12 MESZ, schrieb anatoly techtonik : >On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:13 PM, Bill Deegan

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

To sum up my opinion - I am not against going to Git+GitHub, but only when current repository history is cleaned up of the garbage, such as DocBook templates and is kept small of that garbage and binary files. SCons repository size shows that it is untidy mess.

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:13 PM, Bill Deegan wrote: > All, > > So it sounds like (from limited consensus), that switching to Git now, would > remove a significant barrier to contributing code/fixes? No. Let's run a Git mirror and see how many fixes will end up there. HG

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

I'm git user, and I feel pain each time there is a need to contribute to scons. I believe, that moving to git + github could get scons going and get attention of much more persons/potential contributors (majority of devs uses git and GH seems to be more popular than BB these days). I had a chance

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

> On May 11, 2016, at 07:23 , Jonathon Reinhart > wrote: > > There has been at least one case where I discovered a small issue with SCons > and went to go submit a pull request, but then remembered SCons uses hg, and > decided it wasn't worth the effort to

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

I'd say that git is perfectly happy with multiple heads in a given repository while hg is pretty cranky with that setup. Or at least it was when I last used hg. Once you've pushed something to an external repository with git, the history is pretty much unmutable. You'd have to convince the

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

Hi Mark, On 10.05.2016 04:21, Mark A. Flacy wrote: Hmm. I've used (in order, more or less), PLS (which I expect nobody to know), Clearcase, RCS, CVS, Arch, TLA, HG, BZR, and Git. I won't claim to have used svn in any real sense. The first 4 of that list were centralized version control

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

Hmm. I've used (in order, more or less), PLS (which I expect nobody to know), Clearcase, RCS, CVS, Arch, TLA, HG, BZR, and Git. I won't claim to have used svn in any real sense. The first 4 of that list were centralized version control systems and so not applicable to this discussion. Of

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

It would certainly make it easier for me to contribute; not that I've had that much to contribute recently, but git is in my fingers now and I have to remind myself how to do things in hg. On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Bill Deegan wrote: > All, > > So it sounds like

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

Hi there, On 09.05.2016 16:57, Rob Boehne wrote: For me, scons is the ONLY project I work on that uses Mercurial, and having to translate each and every command is a real pain. I¹ve also NOT contributed back many changes I¹ve made to get Python to build properly on old UNIX systems, primarily

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

On Mon, 2016-05-09 at 10:13 -0700, Bill Deegan wrote: > All, > > So it sounds like (from limited consensus), that switching to Git > now, > would remove a significant barrier to contributing code/fixes? > We just need to be careful that Git supporters are quick and vocal, whereas Mercurial folk

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

All, So it sounds like (from limited consensus), that switching to Git now, would remove a significant barrier to contributing code/fixes? -Bill On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Tim Jenness wrote: > > > On May 9, 2016, at 07:57 , Rob Boehne wrote: > > >

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

> On May 9, 2016, at 07:57 , Rob Boehne wrote: > > For me, scons is the ONLY project I work on that uses Mercurial, and > having to translate each and every command is a real pain. > I¹ve also NOT contributed back many changes I¹ve made to get Python to > build properly on

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

For me, scons is the ONLY project I work on that uses Mercurial, and having to translate each and every command is a real pain. I¹ve also NOT contributed back many changes I¹ve made to get Python to build properly on old UNIX systems, primarily because it was using Hg. I doubt I¹m alone in this,

Re: [Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

Russel, I would say inertia postponed a decision. I'd like to change to git, but it's not a high priority. I'd like to get py2/3 work done and released and then revisit. -Bill On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 5:42 AM, Russel Winder wrote: > There was a flurry of activity about

[Scons-dev] Hg vs Git

There was a flurry of activity about potentially switching from Mercurial to Git at the beginning of the year. The topic seems to have died down. Can I assume that this means Mercurial won the debate and that we will not be switching from Mercurial to Git – even though BitBucket is now a Git