Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Prefer mercurial to git

lists.gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–189 of 189 posts

Re: Prefer mercurial to git

#181

Post by alwillis »

leobelle wrote: post #7

My biggest issues with hg are that hg's revision numbers aren't synchronized across instances, they are local only[1] making them kind of useless, you can't easily have local branches[2], and it stores changesets instead of objects. I've ever seen a convincing argument to choose hg over git. Sure you can do a lot of things with it and I'm sure it's perfectly fine to use, but if you know git, and you like git, there's…

>My biggest issues with hg are that hg's revision numbers aren't synchronized across instances, they are local only[1] making them kind of useless, you can't easily have local branches[2], and it stores changesets instead of objects.

Nope. Revision numbers are just a convenience when you're working locally in a repo. Just like Git, each commit is uniquely identified using a SHA hash.

No again on the local branches. Again, Mercurial is even more flexible when it comes to branching that Git is: http://stevelosh.com/blog/2009/08/a-guide-to-branching-in-me....

Re: Prefer mercurial to git

#182

Post by harel »

ygra wrote: post #180
harel wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So many wrongs in one comment. The fact you believe you'll be blamed for dev productivity loss is just not right. Blame? The fact you have to write scripts converting from one source control to another is not good, the fact you resort to hacky powershelling is scary. I wasn't even thinking the "are they still using cvs in 2014" even but I guess I should have. "blame" should exist in source control systems only.

Actually I was agreeing to your point that at the time when CVS is used version control is no longer "just a tool" but a PITA. I'm the one who suggested conversion to a newer system, so when the other developers need to re-learn and lose a week of productivity that way it is my fault, to some extent. My conversion script is essentially just automating creating cvs2hg config files for a number of CVS modules (and clea…

That's different then, I agree. I read your original comment as if you're tasked with something and then expect to be blamed for it.

Re: Prefer mercurial to git

#184

Post by Perseids »

alinajaf wrote: post #173
haberman wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure I buy it either. To me it comes off as cognitive dissonance between the party line of "don't invent your own crypto" and the pervasive love and acceptance of Git. No one wants to say that Git, on which many of our SCM processes are now built, is suspect. But also no one wants to argue that Linus is somehow an exception to the rule against amateur cryptography. So what we're left with a somewhat ambiguou…

> Git is described as not being crypto Git has plenty of crypto in it, namely GPG (for signing tags), SSH and SSL (for transport). Using off-the-shelf crypto like this doesn't strike me as "inventing your own crypto". > people assume it is resistant to malicious attack Exactly what's the threat model here? I can't conceive of a malicious attack that exploits gits reliance of on SHA1 as a message digest that doesn't a…

> Exactly what's the threat model here? I can't conceive of a malicious attack that exploits gits reliance of on SHA1 as a message digest that doesn't also require write access to your filesystem.

Write access to your filesystem is a threat git is supposed to be secure against (more precisely: the filesystem of your git server) as Haberman has pointed out. Another incident this was relevant is the kernel.org hack: http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/blogs/browse/2011/...

Furthermore, the signed tags are completely worthless if you assume second preimage resistance of sha1 to be broken. Imagine I sit between kernel.org and your computer. When you download the next Linus blessed Linux release I manipulate some of the files to contain some backdoor while still having the same sha1. As you will certainly not check every file manually for bogus content you happily compile and run the manipulated kernel and I have access to your PC via my planted backdoor.

Re: Prefer mercurial to git

#186

Post by belorn »

Karunamon wrote: post #176
glogla wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why is it always the anti-GNU people who are behaving like raging teenagers? I have never heard FSF advocate call people zealot or "fucking idiotic" for preferring other license, but the other way around it's a rather common occurrence. I don't want to generalize, but I guess it has to do with they kinds of people who like and dislike GNU. The day when people will say "oh I like BSD better" instead of "OMG B…

Who'd have thought? Some people don't like being called "evil" for what they choose to do with their code.

Who has ever called BSD "evil"? They do have a devil icon (a point Uncyclopedia is having fun with), but who in their right mind would call BSD evil as a concept?

Proprietary software is sometimes called evil by the free software movement. It is after all the very model that the movement was created to destroy. The environmentalist movement will also call deforestation "evil", as well as anyone who dump oil into the oceans.

BSD however are not Proprietary software. Is it possible, that this discussion is not really about BSD, but rather you using it as a front for your own interesting in proprietary software model. In that case, you are being very dishonest.

Re: Prefer mercurial to git

#187

Post by dllthomas »

jebblue wrote: post #177
bjourne wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This must be the most intellectually dishonest comment I've read in a while. Either find someone from FSF who's written what you're claiming or this discussion is over. Finding unrelated people who feels something about the FSF's position and quoting that .. is just silly.

You must be confused. I'm not claiming anything at all. I'm saying Google something and I'm saying someone wrote something 13 years ago. Any conclusions you draw are your own.

I don't think anyone was arguing that the FSF being all-or-nothing, us-and-them, with-us-or-against-us was not a prevalent meme amongst their detractors. It long has been. The question was whether it is an accurate description of their positions.

Re: Prefer mercurial to git

#188

Post by Karunamon »

belorn wrote: post #186
Karunamon wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who'd have thought? Some people don't like being called "evil" for what they choose to do with their code.

Who has ever called BSD "evil"? They do have a devil icon (a point Uncyclopedia is having fun with), but who in their right mind would call BSD evil as a concept? Proprietary software is sometimes called evil by the free software movement. It is after all the very model that the movement was created to destroy. The environmentalist movement will also call deforestation "evil", as well as anyone who dump oil into the…

I wasn't even talking about BSD. I was talking about the FSF's propensity to throw around words like "evil" when discussing non-open-source software.

The whole BSD thing is a misunderstanding by you and a guy upthread. I never stated anything about BSD's superiority, only that it is an objectively more open license. GPL has objectively more restrictions and de facto associates you with a group that many don't want to be seen as part of.

Re: Prefer mercurial to git

#189

Post by voidr »

jefftchan wrote: post #111

Relevant: Facebook migrated from git to hg awhile back. Here's a blog post on how they are scaling hg for their monolithic repos https://code.facebook.com/posts/218678814984400/scaling-merc...

And by scale they really mean swapped out whole parts of hg, which they could have done with git as well.
Post reply on HN