Re: Deciding between Git/Mercurial

From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date: Sep 29, 2009, 18:58 UTC
Message-ID: <200909292058.53045.jnareb@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ee2a733e0909291144g4b99ab7ay9e63bfac935013aa@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, Leo Razoumov wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> On 2009-09-28, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [..snip..]
> >  Besides with nonlinear history with
> >  revision numbers such as 12678 and 12687 you know that 12678 is older
> >  than 12687 if and only if 12678 and 12687 are on the same line of
> >  development.
> 
> The statement above is incorrect!! In a Mercurial repo local revision
> numbers are strictly ordered in commit time. 12678 < 12687 means that
> 12678 was committed prior to 12687. But these two commits could belong
> to two completely unrelated lines of development.

This is impossible with distributed development. If the second branch comes from other repository, with commits _created_ (in that repository) earlier than commits in current repository, but commits in first branch (from current repository) were created earlier than _fetching_ those commits in second branch:

  .---.---.---.---x---1---2---3---M---.    
                   \             /
                    \-A---B---C-/             <-- from repository B

Either you would have to change commits numbers, and therefore they would be not stable, or you would have to change commit time to mean 'time this commit got into current repository', which would kill performance for sure.

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland