From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-160277-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2747D1389E2
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 19:38:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4E94FE08AD;
	Sat, 29 Nov 2014 19:38:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D695E089F
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 19:38:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (tor-exit-readme.manalyzer.org [95.130.11.147])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: hasufell)
	by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6AE80340528
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 19:38:50 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <547A20B9.8080503@gentoo.org>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 19:38:33 +0000
From: hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's future directtion ?
References: <CAGfcS_=aWJV0MSTJcyNmW3ue66hDdD8LOWmBxj24Wcshcjj+sA@mail.gmail.com>	<54764D1E.1080201@xunil.at>	<CAGfcS_=x7po1jH_7SXRiVZk=k-ARymrGKoSyt3tC+LD4AFgvcQ@mail.gmail.com>	<54768398.60701@yourstruly.sx>	<CAGfcS_ngxn2MxLETDngc4c7KQem5V9FYPD2w5L9P+LsbWUjM9A@mail.gmail.com>	<547689B4.6010606@yourstruly.sx> <5476A3B1.1050403@gentoo.org>	<m56q8s$l8m$1@ger.gmane.org> <5478A482.2030203@gentoo.org>	<m5brej$h19$1@ger.gmane.org> <20141129142815.GB3752@acm.acm>
In-Reply-To: <20141129142815.GB3752@acm.acm>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Archives-Salt: 0296f98d-e09c-4af2-84e8-e585e1c22de6
X-Archives-Hash: 65167585bd905cb58262e88a12f34a46

Alan Mackenzie:
> So that
> instead of conceptualising a "branch" (as you would do with Mercurial,
> Bazaar, Subversion, or even CVS), you need to think about "commits
> reachable from a certain head (excluding commits reachable from some
> other head)".

[snipping everything that is not technical]

How exactly is that a disadvantage? You are just complaining about the
way a concept is presented without saying what actual limitations that
implies (if any).

If you like mercurial better, use that. Speaking about "disadvantages"
however requires a bit more than "I like that way better".