Subject: Re: Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark

From: Bill Davidsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 11:49:32 -0400

Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 01:39:59PM -0700, Matt Mackall wrote:
> 
>>Mercurial is ammenable to rsync provided you devote a read-only
>>repository to it on the client side. In other words, you rsync from
>>kernel.org/mercurial/linus to local/linus and then you merge from
>>local/linus to your own branch. Mercurial's hashing hierarchy is
>>similar to git's (and Monotone's), so you can sign a single hash of
>>the tree as well.
> 
> 
> Ok fine. It's also interesting how you already enabled partial transfers
> through http.
> 
> Please apply this patch so it doesn't fail on my setup ;)
> 
> --- mercurial-0.4b/hg.~1~	2005-04-29 02:52:52.000000000 +0200
> +++ mercurial-0.4b/hg	2005-04-30 00:53:02.000000000 +0200
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> -#!/usr/bin/python
> +#!/usr/bin/env python
>  #
>  # mercurial - a minimal scalable distributed SCM
>  # v0.4b "oedipa maas"

Could you explain why this is necessary or desirable? I looked at what 
env does, and I am missing the point of duplicating bash normal 
behaviour regarding definition of per-process environment entries.

-- 
    -bill davidsen ([email-masked])
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
  last possible moment - but no longer"  -me