Re: Mercurial vs Updated git HOWTO for kernel hackers
- From
- Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@mac.com>
- Date
- Jun 29, 2005, 03:53 UTC
- Message-ID
- <12B6F9A5-81F8-46BD-A05D-B9FA1A70A9FF@mac.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <2661.10.10.10.24.1120004702.squirrel@linux1>
On Jun 28, 2005, at 20:25:02, Sean wrote:
> there will be a price to pay if the linux community fragments over > choice > of scm.
I don't agree. With the current set of SCMs, I don't think it will be long before somebody invents a gitweb/Mercurial/whatever gateway, such that I can "hg serve" from my Mercurial repository and have Linus "git pull" from a multiprotocol bridge.
Show 8 quoted lines
> the good news is that we're no longer locked into the whims of > some proprietary system. so it should be straight forward for > those who > choose any tool to work with those who've chosen another. this is > already > evidenced by the fact that the git repository is pulled and re- > exeported > with mecurial.
I agree completely! Cheers to the end of proprietary revision storage!
> anyway, all the best, just wish you guys would spend less time > trying to > convert git users and more time advancing your own tool.
A project with no users isn't much of a project, now is it? In any case, this thread has long since passed its usefulness, so let's let it die, ok?
Cheers, Kyle Moffett
-- I lost interest in "blade servers" when I found they didn't throw knives at people who weren't supposed to be in your machine room. -- Anthony de Boer