Mercurial is bad for community code reviews

[anatoly techtonik]

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Paul Boddie <paul.boddie at biotek.uio.no>wrote:

> On 18/12/12 12:47, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>
>> GnuPG requirement is too strict for an open source project, and this
>> still pollutes the history requiring one more changeset per review.
>>
>
> But I thought we were doing distributed version control...


Well, I don't mind against extra changeset, but ideally I'd like to filter
such empty changesets with changes in a separate layer of metadata from the
history.

 How to record chagesets done by several people? How to make onsite merges
>> with reviewer names on BitBucket?
>>
>
> Surely having a BitBucket account is too strict for an open source
> project. ;-)


Yes, but the cost of maintaining own server with separate login system is
much higher. =)

If there was a standard on maintaining parallel metadata along with main
repository history then providers like BitBucket could implement the nifty
features faster. Everyone is afraid of maintaining things done in
incompatible manner.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial/attachments/20121218/c277c1ad/attachment-0002.html>