Hello Heiner,
This means if files are moved than not all the old history is copied,
only the last revision (which is the first under the new name)? OK,
that's better than what I feared :-)
just in case you want to have a look at that discussion, here is Matt
Mackall's answer (there are some more postings in the thread):
<http://marc.info/?l=mercurial&m=117847343611844&w=2>
I've collected feedback not only from "official" participants but from
anyone who came along with an problem or an opinion, if it was relevant
in the context of OOo going mercurial. You might have noticed that I
mentioned the storage inefficiency reported by you in my report.
Yes, thanks. However the other (in my mind) very important branching
issues have been unfortunately missed; I had originally sent a message to
this list on Fri, 3 Apr 2009, but at that time I only got a reply from
Martin, if I remember correctly.
Mercurial might not have cheap inline branches but it has bookmarks
which IMHO fulfill exactly the same purpose for which would git users
use their inline branches. Bookmarks are a local thing and do not cost
any relevant additional storages.
I've just checked the documentation of 'bookmarks'. This is not comparable
to Git's branches, it just a kind of movable tag.
A bookmark can be used to address otherwise anonymous branches in the
repo, but the existance of one or more additional head(s) in the repo will
prevent a push from that repo to a remote master.
And I don't see an easy way how one could get rid off such an unneeded
branch again.
This costs tons of additional disk space and CPU time because you have
to rebuild everything from the ground up (object files, executables,
libraries etc.) as a feature branch (you call it CWS) always means a
separate new directory tree in Mercurial.
All this is not an issue anymore with bookmarks.
Yes, you can switch between bookmarks (or anonymous branches) in
Mercurial. But I don't see how you could easily push from there. Let's
wait for Bjoern, in case I might have missed something.
I'm not sure if multiple remote branches in one repository are worth the
effort, but for this case we could use "named branches".
As far as I know, only to some extent. As far as I know with Git I could
couple my local repo to several other developers repos not just to some
named branches in the remote master repo.
Best regards
Guido Ostkamp
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
