seth vidal wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 10:24 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Jeremy Katz wrote:
The other thing that would be nice (and you alluded to below) would be
actually splitting into a patch series. As it stands right now, it's a
good sized diff and it's hard to analyze pieces independently. Which
really is important both for review and later bisection in case of
problems. I know it makes things a lot less fun as you have to do
things like move old code around first and then replace it, but it will
make things a lot clearer. And fwiw, either using quilt or doing a
local import to a git or hg or bzr repo makes doing things like this a
lot simpler.
<thread hijack>
Would be even nicer if yum code was in git/hg repository to begin with :)
Pretty please?
</thread hijack>
I'll say what I've continued to say:
Which one is going to be the 'winner' git or hg? I've looked at both
and for yum's purposes they appear to be indistinguishable.
So, what's the preference these days? Are the cool kids using git or hg?
I'm going to go read the cvs->$scm docs and see which annoys me the
least.
-sv
I have tried bot hg and git, hg seams easier to use at first look, but
tools like Cogito[1] makes git easier to use.
both ones will be fine with me. What troubles me a little, is the
warning Jesse[2] sent about hg.
Tim
[1] : http://git.or.cz/cogito/
[2]: https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/yum-devel/2007-May/003630.html
_______________________________________________
Yum-devel mailing list
Yum-devel@linux.duke.edu
https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/yum-devel
