On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:06:45 -0500 Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote: > > >I find bazaar's model confusing, and hg's intuitive, just like Éric. > >And consider that I learned bazaar before mercurial. To me, it makes > >perfect sense that in a DVCS the "unit" is a directory containing > >a repository and a working copy, and that the repository is *the* > >repository. That is, it has everything related to the project in it, > >just like the master SVN repository does (plus, since it is a DVCS, > >whatever I've committed locally but not pushed to the master). To have > >a repository that only has some of the stuff in it is, IMO, confusing. > >I advocated for having all the Python history in one repo partly for > >that reason. > > I would feel better about Mercurial's if the repo where not intimately tied > with a default working tree (yes, I know -U). In a sense, that's what > Bazaar's shared repositories are: a place where all your history goes. In > Bazaar's model though, it's not tied to a specific working tree, and it's > hidden in a dot-directory. Often (but not always), when you're wanting to do something, there's an extension for Mercurial which can be enabled ;) http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/ShareExtension Regards Antoine.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4