On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 12:06:10 -0800, Platonides <Platonides(a)gmail.com>
On 10/03/12 22:43, Marcin Cieslak wrote:
I am using mercurial, git and starting to learn
fossil. There is one
change which is partially related to tools, partally to the distributed
nature of git.
The fundamental change is something else to me: you lose feeling
of linearity. I like hg because it still tries to give me a cosy nice
local version numbers (great to switch from SVN, you can even have
your old SVN commit numbers to stay after migration). But when
I look at the gerrit interface (not gerrit's fault) I have
no idea what was done before, what was done after, what's the history.
Yes, git is so poewerful, that gets fragile in itself. I end up with
several clones and no idea about where they differ.
Isn't there a way to compare them?
You could designate a single one of them as your primary repo or create a
new one just for the purpose of monitoring. On that repo add each of your
clones as a remote. And then git fetch from them all. You should end up
with foo/master, bar/master, etc... tracking branches and a gui that
displays all the branches should be able to give you an idea of what
commits are not in which repos.
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name