Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?

Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Julian Gonggrijp (j.gonggrijp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-20 12:02:42

Thomas Heller wrote:

> *SIGH* you keep assuming that i never tried git. My last adventure with trying to use git was around half a year ago. I still have nightmares from that.

I'm sorry, I thought you didn't try it because you said you didn't go 
through the transition yet and that you were searching for arguments 
to make such a change. My (naieve) assumption was that if you'd tried 
it you'd at least know about the arguments and either agree or 
disagree with them, but either way you wouldn't be searching for the 
arguments anymore.

The description of your nightmare in your next post was very 
illuminating, thank you for that.

> [...] Maybe switching to a DCVS might increase the quantity of contributions. quantity != quality.

I couldn't agree more. Though quantity can be good too, as long as 
the quality doesn't go down. That seems to be mostly a matter of 
peer-review.

> [...] With that being said, I am ready to admit that something like git might improve the handling of patches etc. but it should be clear that this is totally unrelated to actually applying and verifying those patches.

How is handling patches not related to applying and verifying 
patches?

>>> FWIW, I am the last person who will oppose such a change.
> 
> *Nuff said*.

Alright, I get your point.

-Julian