[Yum-devel] [Patch] Resolver Performance and Correctness

[Tim Lauridsen]

seth vidal wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 10:24 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>   
>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Jeremy Katz wrote:
>>     
>>> The other thing that would be nice (and you alluded to below) would be
>>> actually splitting into a patch series.  As it stands right now, it's a
>>> good sized diff and it's hard to analyze pieces independently.  Which
>>> really is important both for review and later bisection in case of
>>> problems.  I know it makes things a lot less fun as you have to do
>>> things like move old code around first and then replace it, but it will
>>> make things a lot clearer.  And fwiw, either using quilt or doing a
>>> local import to a git or hg or bzr repo makes doing things like this a
>>> lot simpler.
>>>       
>> <thread hijack>
>> Would be even nicer if yum code was in git/hg repository to begin with :)
>>
>> Pretty please?
>> </thread hijack>
>>     
>
> I'll say what I've continued to say:
>  Which one is going to be the 'winner' git or hg? I've looked at both
> and for yum's purposes they appear to be indistinguishable.
>
> So, what's the preference these days? Are the cool kids using git or hg?
>
> I'm going to go read the cvs->$scm docs and see which annoys me the
> least.
>
> -sv
>
>   
I have tried bot hg and git, hg seams easier to use at first look, but 
tools like Cogito[1] makes git easier to use.
both ones will be fine with me. What troubles me a little, is the 
warning Jesse[2] sent about hg.

Tim
[1] : http://git.or.cz/cogito/
[2]: https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/yum-devel/2007-May/003630.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.baseurl.org/pipermail/yum-devel/attachments/20070607/92c8ae28/attachment.htm