[Scons-dev] Scons 2.3.2 regression, D tool...

[Dirk Bächle]

On 09.08.2014 18:01, William Blevins wrote:
>
>     As we know Gary and I are Git people who like transient feature
>     branches
>     that can be packaged for merge and are not Mercurial experts. The D
>     changes extended over a very long period in a Mercurial feature fork
>     with me keeping the fork up to date with the mainline. On merge
>     Mercurial was unable to cope with this, creating zillions of spurious
>     crap. Really we do not have a good workflow and that is at the
>     heart of
>     the "big commit". I just made a single commit of all the D changes
>     from
>     over a two year period because it was the only way to not have a huge
>     internal Mercurial mess.
>
>
> +1, I'm new, so my voice counts less, but my past experiences with 
> revision management tools is that GIT > Mercurial in every way; 
>  Mercurial is more like distributed CVS (and CVS was a 
> lifetime/nightmare ago).
>
I don't see it that way.

> I could make a long rant here, but my primary point is that maybe a 
> motion should be made for moving SCons to GIT?  We could at least take 
> a vote and see if anyone is adamantly opposed.  I'm against using a 
> hammer to do the job of a screwdriver.
>
Have to disagree again. Feel free to raise a poll for Git (I think we 
did that some time ago, and hg won...so why don't we stick to that?), 
but I don't see how this can help us. Work doesn't get less with another 
transition, and we just moved from svn->hg. All the changes in the docs, 
the changes in the basic workflows (branching, merging, releasing) and 
whatever, now start to settle finally...such that one could start to 
really do some proper work.
I just put quite some energy into updating the Wiki pages about how to 
branch/merge with Mercurial...and you want to move *again*?

I've seen pull requests with several commits on a branch, where the 
changes were very easy to follow. That's when people say: "Oh, why don't 
you squash stuff together, so the log graph looks nicer." On other 
occasions, reviewers complained because the single commit was too "big" 
and too difficult to review. Well, yeah, that happens...it's life.
The merge that Russel mentioned was actually, as far as I remember, 
successful and left the repo in a consistent state. It was again the 
only problem that the log graph looked a bit "odd", based on Mercurial's 
inner workings.
I really don't want to transition to another VCS again, only for that...

-1 from me at the moment. Let's not concentrate on having pretty 
revision graphs, but on providing and releasing a software that works 
for our users... ;)

Dirk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://two.pairlist.net/pipermail/scons-dev/attachments/20140809/52674231/attachment.html>