Re: Status of blue sky ideas?

Bruce Stephens wrote:
> CooSoft Support <[email protected]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>   
>> Git is far too complex in certain areas and it's easy to loose
>> stuff.
>>     
>
> Too complex?  In some sense, yes.  The set of commands is rather random,
> not consistent (it's obvious that much of it grew rather than being
> designed).  I disagree that it's easy to lose things: it's easy to throw
> things away, but once you've committed something it's difficult to lose
> it (unless you remove .git, which I guess isn't impossible coming from
> monotone where the database is outside your checkout).
>   
I was thinking about divergences from non-head revisions, in mtn you 
just get two heads on the same branch. In git it goes off branch and the 
only way you can get back to it is to remember the sha1 hash on the 
revision. If it isn't put on a branch then it gets pruned when you do a 
git gc.. Other things are also more clunky.
> [...]
>
>   
>> Perhaps more plugging of mtn on the internet?.... To get the git
>> rejects?
>>     
>
> Make sure you've got something to offer.  Back in the day there weren't
> many practical DVCSs, but nowadays I'd guess that fossil would be a more
> likely refuge for people who don't like git or mercurial.  (Not sure who
> bazaar attracts; I find it peculiarly opaque.)
>
>   
hehe - a lot of people do not get on with git, goodness knows how many 
do. mtn is very good at the day to day stuff, branching merging etc and 
the merging on git can make a real mess - I know I have had to sort  it 
out (and yes mtn under the same conditions did it perfectly).

The only reason I don't recommend mtn in all situations is for 
MS-Windows users that are used to desktop integration. Perhaps that is 
an area to concentrate on,
> [...]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Monotone-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
>