[petsc-dev] [mpich-discuss] MPICH migration to git

[Sean Farley]

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>
> On Jan 9, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>
>> Libmesh just moved to github as well.
>>
>> I think if you carefully consider the branching model, it has a clear advantage over everything else. Dusty Phillips put it nicely in his recent blog post [1]:
>>
>> Git branches are simple and elegant. Mercurial branches are… well, it depends what kind of branch you want. You do know what kind of branch you want, right?
>
>    Branches are the work of the devil and should be avoided at all cost :-)
>
>>
>> Fortunately, his project "gitifyhg" is now usable. [2]
>>
>> As for consensus shifting towards git, I know only a few people that have used both seriously and still prefer Hg. Meanwhile, there are a ton of serious Python folks that prefer git (Lisandro, Andy Terrel, SciPy, NumPy, PyClaw, etc).
>>
>> [1] http://archlinux.me/dusty/2012/12/18/four-ways-to-do-local-lightweight-git-style-branches-in-mercurial/
>> [2] http://archlinux.me/dusty/2013/01/06/gitifyhg-rewritten/
>>
>
> 1)   If Satish and you can come up with (or point me to) a mapping from my current hg workflow (which is pretty dang simple-minded) to how I would do things correctly in Git (and I am satisfied with that mapping) and

I want to be in the same room with you when you first run `git add`.

> 2)  There is a way to translate our current hg repository to git without losing information and

Well, that's trivial.

> 3)  We can continue to use bitbucket more or less that same way as now (or is there a reason to shift to github and it has decent "project" support?)?

Bitbucket finally added comment-on-a-line-of-the-commit and "teams"
for projects. What more is there left that you'd like to see?