Re: cws tools: Would a "remote pull" of a given milestone to accelerate cws rebasing be possible

On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 19:04:52 +0200
Jan Holesovsky <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Just as mercurial would do if we would be using a multiple head repo
> > instead of multiple heads. So git is no more magical there than
> > hg. ;)
> Oh sure, but then again, 'named branches' feature was terribly
> unstable at the time Mercurial was evaluated, and I am not sure they
> ever got removing named branches right.
"Named branches" where not unstable in hg -- they were just
... ahem ... "different". They are a solution comparable to our
codelines (DEV300/OOO320). Feature branches where never an intended
usecase for them. For that, mercurial has bookmarks and those are
stable since ages.

> Your repos on the server would grow substantially, while with git
> (with the alternates setup - one line!) they would not.  Even after
> the push, they'd grow just by the amount of data that was actually
> transferred (as explained, a small fraction of what is pushed now),
> nothing more.
Wrong. Pushing/Pulling completely locally on the remote server would be
just creation of hardlinks and would not require additional copies of
the changesets. So, no: there is no advantage for git here.

Best Regards,

Bjoern