Source Control system results and discussion

[Jason Watson]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Matthew Dillon
<dillon at apollo.backplane.com> wrote:
>    The question now devolves down to those people who commit into the
>    system.  Do we use Git as the master repository and Mercurial as the
>    slave, or do we use Mercurial as the master repository and Git as the
>    slave?
>
>    I propose second that we use Git as the master repository and Mercurial
>    as the slave, but allow committers to commit to either and auto-merge
>    in both directions.

Are there really people that will refuse to use Git to contribute?
What is the advantage of having two write systems vs just have hg be a
read-only mirror of Git?

>     Only clean merges will auto-commit.  A failure will require manual
>     intervention using Git, which should be trivial to handle as all the
>     data will be in the Git staging and master branches.

This would be one of the disadvantages -- having to deal with
conflicts between replicants.

If it is because of the tie we are trying to do this, I hear by change my vote:
-1 hg
+1 git

Signed,
Jason Watson