On Jan 24, 2010, at 12:00 PM, keith wrote:

>> BTW, now that we've agreed that it doesn't matter, do you concede the point that Monticello is substantially like git/mercurial/bazaar from a technical perspective, even if we're not using it in the way that the Mercurial folks advocate?  ;-)
> 
> No because if it were true, firstly Gofer would never have been developed.


(looking up Gofer, which I was unfamiliar with... OK, got it)


> 
> We are not talking about the ability to work locally if you want to. We are talking about having all of the history of (in my case) some 60+ packages from different sources, locally, and providing a non-manual resync back to base when you get back on line again.


OK, I'm completely lost.  What the hell are we talking about here?

I thought that we are talking about how Bob/Sake/Packages are a first attempt at a tool chain that can support the "Mercurial" approach to distributed development.  Furthermore, we agreed that these tools aren't perfect, and that we would therefore make an effort to evaluate the ideas that the tools are an expression of.

Right?

Since we just established this one email exchange ago, and since I'm sure that you're good enough to extend to Monticello the same exemption from purely technical nitpicking, then I must conclude that the cited differences between Monticello and Mercurial are relevant with respect to the topic as I just framed it above.  

Right?

So please explain to me...

Why is having the entire history of packages available locally *fundamentally* necessary for the development process that you're describing (as opposed to for your convenience while developing on the train)?

Why is providing a non-manual resync back to base *fundamentally* necessary for the development process that you're describing (as opposed to your convenience while developing on the train)?

I submit that the online/offline distinction is a diversion.  It is orthogonal to the core question, and furthermore Monticello could be easily extended to add this functionality if required.  If this is not true, please explain why, because I do not understand.

Leaving aside the online/offline distinction (unless you can explain why we shouldn't), I ask again: do you concede the point that Monticello is substantially like git/mercurial/bazaar from a technical perspective, even if we're not using it in the way that the Mercurial folks advocate?


Cheers,
Josh



> 
> You can use "MC1.5's copy all (forked)", to grab the whole history of a package and keep it locally. if you want to, but that isnt really how the tool is designed to be used.
> 
> Keith
> 
> 
> 
>