5 ms·

Incidentally, the second most frequent contributor to hg-git after schacon is Augie Fackler, one of the Google engineers who helped with Google Code's git imple

Incidentally, the second most frequent contributor to hg-git after schacon is Augie Fackler, one of the Google engineers who helped with Google Code's git implementation (and also a frequent hg hacker).

durin42 15y ago
I'm also the actual maintainer of hg-git at this point, FWIW.
- unshift 15y ago
  if hg-git uses dulwich, and it's all pure python, how come i see it running git-index-pack amongst other git (what i assume are shell) commands?
  - koenigdavidmj 15y ago
    Something like that is not exactly core functionality. It could be a situation where hg-git runs purely in Python for everything that it 'needs' to do, and will optionally use the native commands for other git functionality.
  - durin42 15y ago
    Huh? Are you pushing to a local repository? When pushing to a local repo, dulwich calls a local git binary. I don't see any calls to git-index-pack in either hg-git or dulwich in a cursory grep, which matches my memory.
    - unshift 15y ago
      i'm pushing to github. reason i ask is that it segfaults -- see https://github.com/schacon/hg-git/issues/216 https://github.com/schacon/hg-git/issues/216
mvzink 15y ago
A few months ago, I was at a talk at Google Chicago with two of the original creators of Subversion (Ben Collins-Sussman and Brian Fitzpatrick). After profuse apologies, they said everyone in the room should switch from git to hg, and that people who still used git just didn't realize how much it sucks. Then I realized why Google released hg support before git support :P
- dimatura 15y ago
  What didn't they like about Git?
  - self 15y ago
    At the time they evaluated hg and git, hg had better http protocol support.
    - thesz 15y ago
      And that's all? Security, speed, all that's don't outweight http protocol support?
      - durin42 15y ago
        The http protocol was definitely the dealbreaker. That said, if you think hg is less secure than git you've bought into some FUD (the models are so similar it's almost silly, and the security quality is identical). The speed differences between hg and git aren't perceivable for the bulk of projects, even at sizes larger than most corporate repositories I've heard of. There are some operations that are faster for git (notably history rewriting), and others that are faster for hg (notably blame and per-file log). The two systems are very similar and just make some slightly different tradeoffs.
        thesz 15y ago
        As far as I can tell, all changesets in Git are summed by SHA-1. The sum is also an ID for the changeset. You cannot change a changeset without modifying its' SHA-1 sum. This design make Git secure from tampering. The ID for Hg changesets are some 48-bit numbers, like fb43b575b296. I do not think that this size is safe enough.

durin42 15y ago

I'm also the actual maintainer of hg-git at this point, FWIW.

unshift 15y ago
if hg-git uses dulwich, and it's all pure python, how come i see it running git-index-pack amongst other git (what i assume are shell) commands?
- koenigdavidmj 15y ago
  Something like that is not exactly core functionality. It could be a situation where hg-git runs purely in Python for everything that it 'needs' to do, and will optionally use the native commands for other git functionality.
- durin42 15y ago
  Huh? Are you pushing to a local repository? When pushing to a local repo, dulwich calls a local git binary. I don't see any calls to git-index-pack in either hg-git or dulwich in a cursory grep, which matches my memory.
  - unshift 15y ago
    i'm pushing to github. reason i ask is that it segfaults -- see https://github.com/schacon/hg-git/issues/216 https://github.com/schacon/hg-git/issues/216

mvzink 15y ago

A few months ago, I was at a talk at Google Chicago with two of the original creators of Subversion (Ben Collins-Sussman and Brian Fitzpatrick). After profuse apologies, they said everyone in the room should switch from git to hg, and that people who still used git just didn't realize how much it sucks. Then I realized why Google released hg support before git support :P

dimatura 15y ago
What didn't they like about Git?
- self 15y ago
  At the time they evaluated hg and git, hg had better http protocol support.
  - thesz 15y ago
    And that's all? Security, speed, all that's don't outweight http protocol support?
    - durin42 15y ago
      The http protocol was definitely the dealbreaker. That said, if you think hg is less secure than git you've bought into some FUD (the models are so similar it's almost silly, and the security quality is identical). The speed differences between hg and git aren't perceivable for the bulk of projects, even at sizes larger than most corporate repositories I've heard of. There are some operations that are faster for git (notably history rewriting), and others that are faster for hg (notably blame and per-file log). The two systems are very similar and just make some slightly different tradeoffs.
      - thesz 15y ago
        As far as I can tell, all changesets in Git are summed by SHA-1. The sum is also an ID for the changeset. You cannot change a changeset without modifying its' SHA-1 sum. This design make Git secure from tampering. The ID for Hg changesets are some 48-bit numbers, like fb43b575b296. I do not think that this size is safe enough.