From: Rich Pixley Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 19:16:10 GMT Subject: Re: Newbie grief Message-ID: <4FA2D97A.8090504@palm.com> In-Reply-To: On 5/3/12 12:09 , Nathan Gray wrote: > On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Rich Pixley wrote: >> In hg, I don't have to think about how many other branches or repositories >> there might be. I don't have to track where the changes are. And I don't >> have to do anything to add another repository to the mix or to remove one. >> Trivial merges are trivial. The view from any repository is identical, not >> just symmetric. The things I want to do are all simple commands. Pull from >> the cache, merge if necessary, do some work, push to the cache. Repeat as >> necessary since there will be numerous collisions and merges since I'm >> working on multiple machines concurrently. And eventually, push to central >> server. > Wow, this hg sounds great! You should use that! > > All kidding aside, what you're talking about are design decisions > based on preferred workflows. The workflow you're describing may seem > obvious and fantastic to you, but it sounds absurdly complicated to > me. You hate the way git handles remote branches. I think it's > incredibly sensible for a *truly* distributed VCS to enforce > location-based namespacing. Basically, we have differences of > opinion. Since your opinion seems to be that hg has done everything > right and git has done everything wrong, why are you using git? Corporate mandate. Political decision made without discussion with the people who would be using it. --rich