In <[email protected]>, Thiago Macieira wrote: >Jeff Mitchell wrote: >>Thomas Capricelli wrote: >>> http://www.selenic.com/blog/mercurial/sharedandsubrepos.html >>Git has a similar feature (submodules) although I believe there are some >>drawbacks with it; Thiago probably knows more. >Git submodules work fine for what they're meant to be: tracking the state >of a sub-module for a given state of its parent module. However, it's not >meant to serve as an atomic commit. > >Reading the link above, it seems that Mercurial's solution is exactly like >Git's. It does not solve the problem of atomic commits across multiple >repositories.
Odd, I read the link, and it seemed as though commit command(s) in Mercurial would recur into subrepositories and perform a commit there and then use that new commit id for updating the "parent" repository. At a structural level, there's little to no difference using this wouldn't make any atomicity guarantees[1] that git doesn't. It does seem to make it harder to forget to make your commit atomic, but it's been little while since I looked into git's submodule handling as I don't use it myself and couldn't continue to follow the git mailing list. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. [email protected] ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/ [1] Whatever those are in the case. I'm not really sure what "atomic commits across multiple repositories" means in this context.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Kde-scm-interest mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-scm-interest
