Upcoming memcached releases + rambling.

Dustin Sallings dustin at spy.net
Sat Feb 9 19:13:37 UTC 2008

   I don't necessarily doubt git can do the same stuff as mercurial,  
but it seems to take way more effort to do anything in git.

   Part of this is because git has so many ways to do everything.  One  
can actually understand all of mercurial fairly quickly.  The default  
command set includes no destructive commands, but still provides  
everything you need for day-to-day work.  The extensions provide  
advanced functionality incrementally without a lot of redundancy.

   Part of the reason may just be that the complication has led people  
to use it without understanding it.  I'm a little annoyed that my  
contributions to a project using git ended up without my name on  
them.  That's actually harder to do in mercurial since import would  
apply the patch as if it were pulled.  Of course, it could have been  

   Part of it is the way the tools don't seem to get along.  gitweb is  
the worst offender here.  I got my olpc xo and found they had all  
their code in a git repo.  The wiki pointed me to it and I could see  
tons of projects, recent checkins, and all that.  What I could not do  
was clone one.  Apparently I need a different URL for that, not  
provided by gitweb (though I've seen it on some projects).  In hg,  
when you can see the tree history, you can clone it efficiently.  I  
don't need a special server because the native protocol is http and  
the server is a cgi or fastcgi or mod_python thing that is as good for  
hg as it is for humans.

   In the end it sounds like mostly all just care that it's not svn as  
it has no redeeming qualities.  I am advocating mercurial more because  
I think it's easier for humans to understand.

   I do need to spend some time looking over dormando's response and  
see if it clears up issues I'm having.

Dustin Sallings (mobile)

On Feb 9, 2008, at 9:15, "Tobias Lütke" <tobias.luetke at gmail.com>  

> Git does have that same capability. I have seen a lot of initial
> support for mercurial but i'm seeing a increased amount of mercurial
> -> git movement in the last months as well. Git now ships with a
> hg2git converter in its contrib directory for this reason.
> On Feb 9, 2008 11:16 AM, Brian Aker <brian at tangent.org> wrote:
>> Hi!
>> On Feb 9, 2008, at 12:28 AM, dormando wrote:
>>> Mercurial does appear to work better with pushing things around,  
>>> while
>>> git is primarily pull oriented. I don't mind the loss there, pushing
>>> between distributed repos is kinda crazy. Or maybe I just haven't  
>>> used
>>> hg enough.
>> This is what is really working well for me with Mercurial. I dropped
>> hgweb into a directory and then as I want to add users I just update
>> an htpasswd generated file. No fuss what so ever. We all push into  
>> the
>> same repository. As far as sharing changes go I like that I can  
>> push a
>> branch into the main repository and share that branch, without any
>> average committer/puller seeing that (well by default... its not
>> hidden).
>> I am sure git has much of this as well though.
>> Cheers,
>>        -Brian
>> --
>> _______________________________________________________
>> Brian "Krow" Aker, brian at tangent.org
>> Seattle, Washington
>> http://krow.net/                     <-- Me
>> http://tangent.org/                <-- Software
>> http://exploitseattle.com/    <-- Fun
>> _______________________________________________________
>> You can't grep a dead tree.
> -- 
> Tobi
> http://shopify.com       - modern e-commerce software
> http://typo.leetsoft.com - Open source weblog engine
> http://blog.leetsoft.com - Technical weblog

More information about the memcached mailing list