Re: Mercurial vs Updated git HOWTO for kernel hackers

From: Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@mac.com>
Date: Jun 28, 2005, 23:25 UTC
Message-ID: <40A9C7C2-1AFE-45BC-90A5-571628304479@mac.com>
In-Reply-To: <4846.10.10.10.24.1119999568.squirrel@linux1>

On Jun 28, 2005, at 18:59:28, Sean wrote:

> By the sounds of it, git could just use Mecurial or some variation  
> thereof
> as a back end.

Umm, you seem to miss the point, sir. If you use Mercurial, there is no reason you should layer any part of Git on top of it. It already does everything that git does anyways.

> Git is already so much better for the things I do than BK ever was,  
> I'll
> stick with it.

This is like saying "Windows 3.1 is already so much better for the things I do than DOS ever was, I'll stick with it." :-D

Cheers, Kyle Moffett

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCM/CS/IT/U d- s++: a18 C++++>$ UB/L/X/*++++(+)>$ P+++(++++)>$
L++++(+++) E W++(+) N+++(++) o? K? w--- O? M++ V? PS+() PE+(-) Y+
PGP+++ t+(+++) 5 X R? tv-(--) b++++(++) DI+ D+ G e->++++$ h!*()>++$  
r  !y?(-)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------