[Numpy-discussion] DVCS at PyCon
Fri Apr 10 03:03:52 CDT 2009
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Eric Firing <email@example.com> wrote:
> Ondrej Certik wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 10:45 PM, David Cournapeau
>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> Ondrej Certik wrote:
>>>> It is maybe easier to learn how to work with different clones, but
>>>> once you start working with lots of patches and you need to reclone
>>>> all the time, then it's the wrong approach to work, as it takes lots
>>>> of time to copy the whole repository on the disk.
> This is simply wrong. Mercurial uses hard links for cloning a repo that
On my laptop, recloning the whole repository (with hardlinks) takes
considerably longer than creating a new branch in the same directory,
that's a pure fact.
> is on the same disk, so it is faster and much more space-efficient than
> copying the files. But if you do want named branches in a given repo,
> you can have that also with hg. Granted, it has not always been part of
> hg, but it is now. Same with rebasing and transplanting.
As far as I know mercurial doesn't have interactive rebase. Besides,
the default package in Ubuntu Jaunty doesn't even have the
(noninteractive) rebase enabled. So I think it will still take quite
some (lot?) of time until mercurial has all those tools available by
> Now, I know that your (speaking to Ondrej) project switched from hg to
> git, and you have provided some useful insight as to why. I also
> understand that there are substantive differences between the two, with
> advantages and disadvantages. But I don't think it follows that numpy
> (or matplotlib, eventually, I hope) necessarily should move to git
I never said numpy should move to git because I like git.
> if/when a move to a DVCS is decided upon. It is possible that hg might
> be a better fit--a better compromise--for present *and* *potential*
> *future* contributors to numpy, scipy, and matplotlib.
Yes, it may be possible.
More information about the Numpy-discussion