Mercurial developer responds to "Switch to git?"

Re:Mercurial developer responds to "Switch to git?" by dingaling on Monday November 18, 2013 @01:29AM (#6752935)

> Eventually, they realized implementing version control or record structures at the filesystem level was unnecessary.

I wouldn't say 'unnecessary'; it's more the case that the quick and dirty Unix and DOS solutions 'won' by deign of being easy for implementers & users.

And ever since then we've been hacking-on the features that were lost because of this.

Two features we lost:

1. Generational data groups, as on MVS. The OS automatically keeping a history of changes to the 'file'

2. Addressing any file as an RDBMS table, as on OS/400. Amazingly flexible.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Mercurial developer responds to "Switch to git?" by qznc on Monday November 18, 2013 @01:59AM (#6753012)

1. is addressed by svn,git,etc and 2. is addressed by SQLite,BerkeleyDB,etc. The advantage of the user-space solution is that they are portable across OS boundaries, version management is independent of OS, and more diversity. How is it an advantage to put this stuff into the OS?

("in the OS" probably always means "in the kernel" in this context, not "in system user-space libraries")

[ Parent | on HN ]