dvcs

As far as I know all distributed revision control systems require you to clone the whole repository. For this reason is it not wise to put huge amounts of content into one single repository (thanks for this answer ). I know that this a not a bug but a feature, but I wonder whether this is a requirement for all distributed revision control systems. In distributed rcs the history of a file (or a chunk of content) is a directed acyclic graph, so why can't you just clone this single DAG instead of the set of all graphs in the repository? Maybe I miss something but the following use-cases are hard

What were the reason for chosing Mercurial as a basis of FogCreek Kiln , a source control management system with tightly integrated code review, and FogBugz integration? Why Mercurial, and not other (distributed) version control system, like Bazaar, Git or Monotone, or creating own version control system like Fossil (distributed software configuration management, including bug tracking and wiki) did? What were features that make FogCreek choose Mercurial as Kiln engine? deft_code Here's an answer from one of the Kiln developers. It provides real branching. It's easy to use. Windows support is

I have a script running some Mercurial commands in non-interactive mode on a build server. One of the commands merges two branches and there is always a conflict in the .hgtags file during the merge because of the way the build scripts are set up. How can I force Mercurial to always merge the .hgtags file using changes from both files, first from one, then from the other? For example, if I the files to merge were A B C and A B D I would like the result to be A B C D I am guessing I will need a custom merge tool. What tool provides this functionality? Martin Geisler Please see the answer below

My server already runs IIS on TCP ports 80 and 443. I want to make a centralized "push/pull" Git repository available to all my team members over the Internet. So I should use HTTP or HTTPS. But I cannot use Apache because of IIS already hooking up listening sockets on ports 80 and 443! Is there any way to publish a Git repository over IIS ? Does Git use WebDAV? Update. It seems that Git HTTP installation is read-only. That's sad. I intended to keep the stable branch on a build server and redeploy using a hook on push. Does anyone see a workaround besides using SVN for that branch? Brian

Treating my repository as a SVN repo, I get: svn co http://myrepo/foo/trunk foo ... foo/ bar/ baz/ -> http://myrepo/baz/trunk Treating it as a Git repo, I get: git svn clone http://myrepo/foo --trunk=trunk --branches=branches --tags=tags ... foo/ bar/ I can clone baz to my local machine elsewhere and add a symlink, but that's just a hack. Is there a way to have git svn rebase automatically pull in those changes when it updates everything else, just like svn up does? The best means of integrating svn externals with git-svn that I've seen is this script , which clones your externals into a .git

I'm trying to update a Git repository on GitHub. I made a bunch of changes, added them, committed then attempted to do a git push . The response tells me that everything is up to date, but clearly it's not. git remote show origin responds with the repository I'd expect. Why is Git telling me the repository is up to date when there are local commits that aren't visible on the repository? [searchgraph] git status # On branch develop # Untracked files: # (use "git add <file>..." to include in what will be committed) # # Capfile # config/deploy.rb nothing added to commit but untracked files

How do you reverse the effect of a merge on polarised branches without dying of agony? This problem has been plaguing me for months and I have finally given up. You have 1 Repository, with 2 Named Branches. A and B. Changes that occur to A will inevitably occur on B. Changes that occur directly on B MUST NEVER occur on A. In such a configuration, merging "B" into "A" produces a dire problem in the repository, as all the changes to B appear in A as if they were made in A. The only "normal" way to recover from this situation appears to be "backing out" the merge, ie: hg up -r A hg backout -r