Re: Mercurial vs Updated git HOWTO for kernel hackers

From: Sean <seanlkml@sympatico.ca>
Date: Jun 28, 2005, 22:59 UTC
Message-ID: <4846.10.10.10.24.1119999568.squirrel@linux1>
In-Reply-To: <20050628224946.GU12006@waste.org>

On Tue, June 28, 2005 6:49 pm, Matt Mackall said:

Show 8 quoted lines

> Again, have fun with that. Mercurial already went down this path a
> month ago, discovered it couldn't reasonably be fixed without
> abandoning the hashes as file name scheme, and changed repo layout.
>
> Git's going to have a much harder time as it's pretty solidly tied to
> lookup by contents hash. If you throw that out, you might as well use
> Mercurial.
>

By the sounds of it, git could just use Mecurial or some variation thereof as a back end. Git is not tied to it's back end. Afterall, Mecurial just took the basic ideas from Linus' and adapted them to a different back end. But there are very few situation where Git performance is a practical problem, and where it is things are being addressed. Git is already so much better for the things I do than BK ever was, I'll stick with it.

Sean.