> On 13 May 2017, at 16:17, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 13 May 2017, at 15:51, Thierry Goubier <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Le 13/05/2017 à 15:43, Esteban Lorenzano a écrit : >>> >>> >>>> On 13 May 2017, at 13:16, Yuriy Tymchuk <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I’m not a bit expert, but if you don’t use “metadataless” format >>>> everything works fine with monticello. I.e. each git commit >>>> contains all the mc history. >>> >>> yes, but with iceberg we did another choice: we force metadataless >>> and do not keep compatibility with monticello. this is like that by >>> design: keeping the metadata was too much noise and generated a lot >>> of conflicts we don’t want. >> >> The metadata-less format was experimented with before Iceberg because we >> knew that recreation of MC-compatible metadata out of the vcs log was >> already working. >> >> Then FileTree (and MC) was modified to make sure that the metadata-less >> format would be compatible with MC. >> >> Now, Iceberg has decided to be non-compatible with MC. But this has nothing >> to do with the underlying format. > > Iceberg uses filetree metadataless as file format (it uses even the same > class to do the write) so what you are saying is not true ;) > What changes is that instead adding a random cypress.1 we add the a number > which is a timestamp of the commit. > >> >>> So, using iceberg is not using git as “just another repository format >>> as http, ftp, etc.”. If you want to keep both versions, then you >>> need to save in mc format then save again in iceberg (or viceversa). >> >> Which looks clumsy at best and at worse, will make the transition to Iceberg >> a pain. > > I disagree. > the cost of keeping eternal backward compatibility is not moving forward. > > And Peter did a very good tool to easy migrations that respect history. > > Also, nobody is forced to use iceberg: you don’t want it, do not use it. You > still have monticello.
as another point: nobody ask git to be compatible with svn or mercurial. the only thing people ask is for migration tools. and we have it. Esteban > > >> >> Thierry >> >>> Esteban >>> >>>> >>>> Uko >>>> >>>>> On 13 May 2017, at 09:28, Thierry Goubier >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Le 13/05/2017 à 08:58, Stephane Ducasse a écrit : >>>>>> My gut feeling is that it will be better not to mix git and >>>>>> MC. >>>>> >>>>> It is easy to make MC compatible with Git. >>>>> >>>>> It wasn't that hard in the past, but needed a community effort >>>>> (MC being a core part of the system). Now, with the >>>>> infrastructure underway (libgit, git fast-import) it looks very >>>>> easy to implement. >>>>> >>>>> Thierry >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Oleksandr Zaytsev >>>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello >>>>>> >>>>>> Two days ago I was trying to send the slice with my fix to >>>>>> PolyMath using Monticello. But the version number got set to >>>>>> 1494471195. Today I realized that all the packages to which I >>>>>> commit are numbered like that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cyril Ferlicot explained to me that this happens when I mix git >>>>>> and Monticello commits. He suggested that I use a separate >>>>>> image for committing to GitHub, or file out/file in if there is >>>>>> a lot of changes to commit. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can this be considered a bug? Should I report it? >>>>>> >>>>>> I think it would be causing problems for many people. >>>>>> >>>>>> Oleks
