News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Scaling Mercurial at Facebook. Parent comment

Re:Scaling Mercurial at Facebook by wtetzner on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @05:00PM (#7020289)
I don't think he was talking about performance. I think he meant lightweight in the sense that a branch (in git) is just a pointer to a commit.

It's conceptually lightweight.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Scaling Mercurial at Facebook by JoshTriplett on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @09:26PM (#7021290)
Both: it's conceptually lightweight, and because of that "pointer to a commit" structure it's also effectively free to create and move around branches.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Scaling Mercurial at Facebook by k_bx on Wednesday January 08, 2014 @05:10AM (#7022665)
Why is mercurial branches ineffective to move around branches? If I'm not mistaken, if you want to move commits from one branch to another you do absolutely the same rebase.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Scaling Mercurial at Facebook by k_bx on Wednesday January 08, 2014 @05:08AM (#7022660)
Well, mercurial branch is just a record in list of branches, so is it then also "conceptually lightweight"? What is "conceptually lightweight" anyway?
[ Parent | on HN ]