Last try
>>> "UB" == Uwe Brauer <o...@mat.ucm.es> writes:
>> On Sat, Mar 4, 2023 at 1:39 AM Uwe Brauer <o...@mat.ucm.es> wrote:
>> It's calculated on the fly.
Ok, that I was afraid of.
> Weirdly enough, I wrote a blog post [1] about a debate in 2012
> precisely about the differences between git and mercurial, and how
> `git name-rev` can be used to simulate mercurial branches (for the
> most part).
> But there are some corner cases in which git is not able to provide
> the same information as mercurial, because it doesn't have the branch
> point (the precise point where a branch was created). There's many
> potential ways to calculate this branch point [2], but there isn't a
> single infallible solution.
> Git truly needs to be fixed in order to support this, I proposed a
> branch@{tail} notation [3].
That would be great, in the meantime name-rev is good enough for me in
most cases. I have to admit that for larger repositories I still feel
more comfortable using mercurial (one of the reasons is named branches)
Now since quite a while the hg-git converter exports named branches to git
branches (although that is still not officially supported)
The problem is how to import git branches into named branches (right now
they are converted to mercurial bookmarks).
The problem is if name-ref is calculated by git on the fly, then one
would need somehow first pull with the git the repository and then
import the local repository to mercurial.
Thanks for the clarification.
> But for now `git name-rev` is good enough.
Right
Cheers
Uwe Brauer
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git
for human beings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/git-users/877cvtq1li.fsf%40mat.ucm.es.
