Migration to mercurial?

[Peter Burns]

So mercurial is now available as an option for all google code
projects: http://google-code-updates.blogspot.com/2009/05/mercurial-now-available-to-all-open.html

Should we switch to using mercurial? It offers numerous advantages
over svn, and is known for being easy to learn and use, especially for
svn users. If we decide to, I'd be willing to do the conversion.

My vote is definitely for switching. I've seen the advantages of a
dvcs firsthand and I think codeswarm would benefit greatly, both for
current developers, and for making it easier for new developers to
contribute. I know I get more patches submitted for my projects
hosted on dvcs than on svn ones.

Speaking of which, it'd be much easier for me to bring in changes by
myself and numerous others that are currently sitting in a fork on
github. I haven't brought them in in part just because of the
impedance mismatch of crossing the git-subversion boundry, and in part
because some of the changes are controversial and I'd like it if
people could check them out as a branch first to be vetted.

[Alex Gourley]

I'm not actively involved anymore so my vote is worth .000001, if
that, but I think a dcvs is the right choice for code swarm because of
how much source customization each user usually does.

-Alex

[Daniel Friesen]

((And now my identities strike again))
Unintentional, 99.9% of the mailing lists I use include a To or Reply-To
header that lets me use normal reply to reply to the group.
I never got into the habit, or ever felt comfortable in having to hit
the reply all button.

Peter Burns wrote:
> This is true, and I haven't used mercurial from git, but it's gotta be
> better than the svn integration. My main worry is keeping authorship
> info intact, because git differentiates between author and committer.
>
> I thought the same thing about local branches, but I just saw this
> page http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/GitConcepts - which
> indicates that git-style local branches are *technically* supported,
> though the ui is kind of a pain. Either way, my hope is to just use
> git and a bridge to mercurial. I don't do any of the history
> rewriting stuff with git, which seems to be the major problem with
> integrating them, so I'm hopeful.
>
> I'd be willing to learn to use hg though and just interface through
> that for my code_swarm work honestly. Either way I just don't want to
> have a fork of code_swarm any more, I hate that it may have divided
> the community a bit or robbed it of some momentum.
>
> By the way, you didn't include the group in this email, was that
> intentional? If you repost it to the group, I will as well.
>
> -Peter
>
> On May 28, 2009, at 2:55 PM, Daniel Friesen wrote:
>
>> Careful with DCVS == DCVS. There are still differences between git
>> and mercurial.
>> If there are already people in the group comfortable with git then
>> moving to the existing git repo might be an option.
>> In particular one user in the bespin mailing list mentioned some
>> issues he had with pulling in hg (mercurial) which he never had
>> issues with in git.
>> Also note that hg doesn't actually support local branches like git
>> does. So if you're used to the classic git pattern of creating a new
>> branch for a feature, working on it, then merging/rebasing it into
>> your main repo then you might be a little uncomfortable moving to hg.
>>
>> ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name]

[Dudley Fox]

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Peter Burns <ric...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So mercurial is now available as an option for all google code
> projects: http://google-code-updates.blogspot.com/2009/05/mercurial-now-available-to-all-open.html
>
> Should we switch to using mercurial? It offers numerous advantages
> over svn, and is known for being easy to learn and use, especially for
> svn users. If we decide to, I'd be willing to do the conversion.
>
> My vote is definitely for switching. I've seen the advantages of a
> dvcs firsthand and I think codeswarm would benefit greatly, both for
> current developers, and for making it easier for new developers to
> contribute. I know I get more patches submitted for my projects
> hosted on dvcs than on svn ones.

For what my vote is worth I would prefer to stick with subversion,
this is mainly because I am lazy and don't feel like learning yet
another version control system. :)

> Speaking of which, it'd be much easier for me to bring in changes by
> myself and numerous others that are currently sitting in a fork on
> github. I haven't brought them in in part just because of the
> impedance mismatch of crossing the git-subversion boundry, and in part
> because some of the changes are controversial and I'd like it if
> people could check them out as a branch first to be vetted.

Which part of your code changes do you feel were controversial? I have
already ported some of the changes across in the latest branch.

Enjoy,
Dudley

> >
>

[Michael Ogawa]

Hi all,

The jury still seems to be out on Google's handling of Mercurial. And
I don't think there's enough project activity to justify such a
change. So I'll leave it as SVN for now.

Rictic, if you want to copy your implementation into a branch or tag
of this repository, you're welcome to. But I'm happy having this
project be the reference and yours be the one with cutting edge
features.

Michael