On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Keshav Kini <keshav.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, I managed to activate some button on Google Groups accidentally and
> prematurely post the above message...
>
> +100. Our main problem with Mercurial is that we are not *using* it. We are
> just using Mercurial as a way for Jeroen to generate changelogs, and no
> other collaborative purpose whatsoever (despite what individual developers
> such as William might be doing with qfinishing patches, committing, etc.
> locally). We currently get zero benefit from using a distributed version
> control system. I completely agree with Jason's assessment of git vs.
> Mercurial, namely that both are serviceable, though git is more so (due to
> its topic branches support). But either git or a "real" Mercurial workflow
> would be vastly superior to the frankly nonsensical way we're using
> Mercurial right now.
>
> My $0.02.
I disagree with what you wrote above. Perhaps you have a different
impression than me of how Mercurial is used, given the relative sizes
of our contributions to the Sage library.
deep:hilbert wstein$ hg log|grep -i keshav|wc -l
9
deep:hilbert wstein$ hg log|grep -i wstein|wc -l
5368
This strikes me as hyperbole: "We currently get zero benefit from
using a distributed version control system."
That said, picking apart what you write would be counterproductive,
because I greatly appreciate that you are so motivated to help us with
transitioning to more efficient workflows, git, etc., and I sort of
want you to continue to believe what you wrote even if it isn't
technically 100% true. :-).
-- William
--
William Stein
Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
http://wstein.org
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
