At 18:50 -0700 06 Apr 2016, "Kevin J. McCarthy" <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 11:04:59AM -0700, David Champion wrote:
OK - that's a good track to have. The thing that made me think otherwise
was the removal of hg-related components. Kevin has the final say now
but we've never discussed moving to git, and I don't see what doing
so would accomplish particularly other than allow/make people use one
hosting system instead of another.
From what I saw, the neomutt repository isn't even just removing
hg-related components it's removing all VCS knowledge from the build.
Which I think would be a mistake even if we decided to switch to git.
A few years ago I posted a series of patches to modify version.sh to be
able to get detailed version info from either hg or git (in that order).
Those are still part of the build that I use, so the versions at the tip
of the branch at https://github.com/aschrab/mutt/commits/feature/version
should apply fairly cleanly to the current head version. If there's
interest in applying those I'd be happy to rebase and post them again.
Actually, I think that the second commit there makes sense even without
any desire to support development with git.
I'm actually not as against this as you might think. It's pretty clear
git has won the popularity war, and there is some benefit in using a vcs
that most developers are familiar with.
However, there are some strong arguments for not changing. Our
infrastructure and workflows are working quite nicely (thanks Brendan!),
and I'm not anxious to redo them all. Mercurial is easy to use, and I'm
skeptical it's *that* hard for anyone who's used git to pick up the
basics.
I'd agree that it isn't hard for somebody familiar with git to pick up
the basics of mercurial. But going beyond that can be. And, it's not
just the learning curve. I both my editor and my shell configured to
have some fairly extensive integration with git, which does me no good
when working on code in some other VCS.
