On 13 May 2017, at 15:51, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier@gmail.com> wrote:
Le 13/05/2017 à 15:43, Esteban Lorenzano a écrit :
On 13 May 2017, at 13:16, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote:
Iâm not a bit expert, but if you donât use âmetadatalessâ format everything works fine with monticello. I.e. each git commit contains all the mc history.
yes, but with iceberg we did another choice: we force metadataless and do not keep compatibility with monticello. this is like that by design: keeping the metadata was too much noise and generated a lot of conflicts we donât want.
The metadata-less format was experimented with before Iceberg because we knew that recreation of MC-compatible metadata out of the vcs log was already working.
Then FileTree (and MC) was modified to make sure that the metadata-less format would be compatible with MC.
Now, Iceberg has decided to be non-compatible with MC. But this has nothing to do with the underlying format.
Iceberg uses filetree metadataless as file format (it uses even the same class to do the write) so what you are saying is not true ;) What changes is that instead adding a random cypress.1 we add the a number which is a timestamp of the commit.
So, using iceberg is not using git as âjust another repository format as http, ftp, etc.â. If you want to keep both versions, then you need to save in mc format then save again in iceberg (or viceversa).
Which looks clumsy at best and at worse, will make the transition to Iceberg a pain.
I disagree. the cost of keeping eternal backward compatibility is not moving forward. And Peter did a very good tool to easy migrations that respect history. Also, nobody is forced to use iceberg: you donât want it, do not use it. You still have monticello.
Thierry
Esteban
Uko
On 13 May 2017, at 09:28, Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier@gmail.com> wrote:
Le 13/05/2017 à 08:58, Stephane Ducasse a écrit :
My gut feeling is that it will be better not to mix git and MC.
It is easy to make MC compatible with Git.
It wasn't that hard in the past, but needed a community effort (MC being a core part of the system). Now, with the infrastructure underway (libgit, git fast-import) it looks very easy to implement.
Thierry
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Oleksandr Zaytsev <olk.zaytsev@gmail.com <mailto:olk.zaytsev@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hello
Two days ago I was trying to send the slice with my fix to PolyMath using Monticello. But the version number got set to 1494471195. Today I realized that all the packages to which I commit are numbered like that.
Cyril Ferlicot explained to me that this happens when I mix git and Monticello commits. He suggested that I use a separate image for committing to GitHub, or file out/file in if there is a lot of changes to commit.
Can this be considered a bug? Should I report it?
I think it would be causing problems for many people.
Oleks