On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 19:04:52 +0200 Jan Holesovsky <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Just as mercurial would do if we would be using a multiple head repo > > instead of multiple heads. So git is no more magical there than > > hg. ;) > Oh sure, but then again, 'named branches' feature was terribly > unstable at the time Mercurial was evaluated, and I am not sure they > ever got removing named branches right. "Named branches" where not unstable in hg -- they were just ... ahem ... "different". They are a solution comparable to our codelines (DEV300/OOO320). Feature branches where never an intended usecase for them. For that, mercurial has bookmarks and those are stable since ages. > Your repos on the server would grow substantially, while with git > (with the alternates setup - one line!) they would not. Even after > the push, they'd grow just by the amount of data that was actually > transferred (as explained, a small fraction of what is pushed now), > nothing more. Wrong. Pushing/Pulling completely locally on the remote server would be just creation of hardlinks and would not require additional copies of the changesets. So, no: there is no advantage for git here. Best Regards, Bjoern --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
