Subject: Re: Mercurial vs Updated git HOWTO for kernel hackers

From: "Sean" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:37:36 -0400 (EDT)

On Tue, June 28, 2005 7:25 pm, Kyle Moffett said:
> On Jun 28, 2005, at 18:59:28, Sean wrote:
>> By the sounds of it, git could just use Mecurial or some variation
>> thereof
>> as a back end.
>
> Umm, you seem to miss the point, sir.  If you use Mercurial, there is no
> reason you should layer any part of Git on top of it.  It already does
> everything that git does anyways.

No, you seem to miss the point.  Git already does everything Mercurial
does, and does it pretty well too.  The _point_ was that if the big
"feature" of Mercurial is it's on disk format, Git is perfectly capable of
copying it at any point.   The on disk format just ISN'T CLOSE TO BEING
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING AT THE MOMENT.

>
>> Git is already so much better for the things I do than BK ever was,
>> I'll
>> stick with it.
>
> This is like saying "Windows 3.1 is already so much better for the
> things
> I do than DOS ever was, I'll stick with it."  :-D

Yes, so what's your point?  Mercurial is trying to solve a problem that is
already perfectly well handled for me by Git.   Therefore I have _zero_
motivation to direct my efforts elsewhere.

Cheers,
Sean