Time to Leave Monotone Behind?
rekkanoryo at rekkanoryo.org
Wed Jan 19 02:16:53 EST 2011
On 01/18/2011 06:48 PM, Mark Doliner wrote:
> Thank you, John!
If the conversion wouldn't take so long, this would be much less painful. The
last conversion I ran took almost 27 hours. I need to see if I can more
invasively patch the hg 'convert' extension to use mtn's automate stdio stuff
instead of using individual mtn calls. This could improve performance if one
long-lived mtn automate process served all the requests, compared to at least
two mtn automate processes per revision.
I imagine I could also use 'mtn git_export' and then pipe this into the
fast-import extension for hg, but this would defeat some of the stuff Richard
recently committed to the conversion files repo I linked at the beginning of
this thread. I patched hg convert to handle a "committer" cert in the mtn
database, as well as combining comment certs into the changelog entry like the
git_export stuff does. The committer cert, where it exists and isn't the same
as the author cert, is appended to the changelog since hg has no concept of
committer and author being different people. Appending the committer to the
changelog in this manner is a precedent set by hg convert's own git support and
some tools like hgk support it.
I'd like to note that I still need to track down the few leftover revisions with
multiple changelog certs. I know there are a few left from some of us (myself
included) wanting to add additional information to the changelog post-commit.
The conversion process will lose all but one changelog cert, near as I can tell.
I'd like to reconcile the multiple changelog certs to include all the
information so a conversion looks as good as we can possibly make it.
> I'm strongly in favor of switching away from Monotone to either
> Mercurial or Git. Both are favorites. I think I mildly prefer git,
> in general. But if Instantbird and Adium are both using Mercurial
> already, that's reason enough for me to use it.
Ok, so to summarize, the replies so far indicate:
* 3 developers who have expressed preference for hg
* 1 of these developers dislikes git
* 0 of these developers object to git
* 3 developers who have expressed preference for git
* 2 of these developers support hg to assist downstream projects
* 0 of these developers object to hg
* 1 developer who has expressed no preference
* 1 downstream project that would prefer hg
* 1 Crazy Patch Writer who has expressed preference for hg
Is this accurate? And would anyone else like to weigh in on this? Based solely
on what's been posted here on the list, it's feeling like more or less a draw,
with the benefit to Adium and Instantbird pushing toward hg somewhat.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Devel