Am Donnerstag, 29. Januar 2009 16:51:03 schrieb Lars Marowsky-Bree:
On 2009-01-29T13:45:39, Adrian Schröter email@example.com wrote:
Again: It is way more effort to extend git/svn/.. to our needs than to add merge handling to osc. We would not have anything this year with this approach.
Yes, we lack merge handling atm. But when we had no time for this it does not help to start an approach which would take way more time.
That's something I just don't believe.
Look at _link: it's a hack implementing something which could easily be implemented as well (and probably more completely) using chained repos with hg/git (or any other distributed versioning system), which would help trace merges etc.
_link has functionlity (like the complete source server) which allows also features of controling the build counters. It fits into the project/package concept also well. I disagree that it is a hack.
Yes, everything could be also implemented different.
Yes, for _every single feature_, it's easier to add the feature to osc instead of switching to a "known" and complete DVCS. But if you look at the whole picture, I'd bet it doesn't hold.
And that would mean that we need to support _every single feature_ regarding our special needs for package building in this DVCS. This is more work and will lead to an inconsistent system.
But since we just repeat arguments from the discussion month ago, I will stop here. We could invest our time really better by just supporting the merge handling.