Hi Bjoern, On Monday 03 of August 2009, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> > But hg-git is a Mercurial extension, and needs git to be the server, > > doesn't it? > > So? The description of hg-git says you can push changesets from a mercurial > repo to a git repo keeping their identity. Why shouldnt you do that with an > OOo mercurial repo and work on the git repo and push your changeset back as > mercurial changesets. If the conversion keeps the identity there shouldnt > be a problem. It is a problem, because you need the time between pull and push to be able to be as short as possible, and when I have to pull to my Mercurial repo first, then push from that to my git repo, and for pushing first pull from my git repo, and then push to the Mercurial server, it is probable that someone pushes between my pull/push, and I'll have to do that once again (with the same probability that it happens again). Of course, if there was a possibility to git clone/pull/push from a Mercurial repo, I would just shut up, use that, and don't care ;-) - similarly as some people use git-svn these days. > Actually, it should be possible to have a mercurial and a git > repo in (daily) sync making the stuff pretty much transparent. Unfortunately not possible, how would you resolve conflicts when somebody pushes to the Mercurial repo, and someone to the git repo? No, I don't want to bother the RelEng with such a thing. > However: > - There is no _rational_ reason to do this (however, there are reasons of > personal preference/faith ;-) ) Well, the entire choice Mercurial vs. git is not rational, but based on personal preference/faith ;-) Regards, Kendy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
