4 ms·

I've seen things like this. I would be very wary about trusting them with my precious source code, wouldn't you? However good they are, they're an additional

I've seen things like this. I would be very wary about trusting them with my precious source code, wouldn't you? However good they are, they're an additional layer in which (A) things can go wrong, and (B) you're insulated from the reality that you need to access to fix problems. I fear that Hg-Git would be one of those things that is an absolute delight for as long as it Just Works, then abruptly transitions into an absolute horror the moment something goes wrong.

fragmede 16y ago
I suspect that many people feel the same about computers in general... I don't use Hg-Git, but I do use git-svn. Just like Hg-Git, I'm sure there are some caveats, but what finally got me to switch is that (at least for git-svn) it's a real live Git repo. Which means the code I write, my actual work, is all still there. The fix to my nightmare scenario? I do a fresh svn checkout to a new directory, and I do git checkout, I copy the files out, I do an svn commit of that version of files. Definitely far from ideal, to be sure, but in my mind, knowing that was the worse case scenario, put me quite at ease. (Sure I'd read about git svn dcommit, but knowing that did set my mind at ease.)
undees 16y ago
I've been trusting my precious source code to Hg-Git for a while. The sort of "something goes wrong" moments have usually been fixable with a bit of grubbing around in Hg-Git's source. They've got themselves a pretty inviting code base, FWIW.