[Kde-scm-interest] Have we arrived to a dead end?

[Ian Monroe]

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 6:18 AM, Robert Wohlrab <robert.wohlrab at gmx.de> wrote:
> Riccardo Iaconelli wrote:
>> Hi,
>> so, to recap from last two immense threads (not counting KOffice one
>> now), seems like we're stuck between two situations:
>>
>> - Not splitting the main modules. Would work great but will fail once
>> we try to move stuff between the modules (I still think that this is
>> not a huge usecase but.. okay)
>> - Splitting the main modules. Then we're doomed in a mess of
>> dependencies, repos, metarepos, and so on. Distros like slackware
>> won't forgive us, KDE developer groups (e.g. kdeedu) will hate us, and
>> personally I'm not a big fan of it either.
>>
>> This looks like a dead end to me.
>>
>> So, what are we doing now? Giving up on git and telling people to just
>> screw up and use git-svn? Think more? Hire someone to make a better
>> git? Or what?
>> Does anybody have concrete suggestions, comments, or anything else?
>
> No, we should try mercurial. I don't know why everyone is so "git"ish and
> still everybody here hates it. So if there are problems involved in the git
> stuff then search for a solution and I think the solution is mercurial with
> its narrow clones. Just keep _everything_ in hg and we have atomic moves, tags
> etc.
>
> And look for example at googles analysis of git vs. mercurial.... mercurial is
> just superior to git.

I seriously doubt a narrow clone is all that usable. It kind of breaks
the semantics of how any DVCS would work. Actually the Hg website says
specifically not to do this.
[http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/UnderstandingMercurial#What_Mercurial_can.27t_do]

Ian