Re: VCS comparison table

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Johannes Schindelin wrote:

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Aaron Bentley wrote:

quoted

Bazaar's namespace is "simple" because all branches can be named by a 
URL, and all revisions can be named by a URL + a number.

How should this cope with a distributed project? IOW how does it deal with 
"this revision and that revision are exactly the same"?

There are two answers here.  One is that the URL + number is UI, not
internals.  A unique ID is used internally, so that can be compared.

But to fully ensure that there are no differences, i.e. that no one has
reused an ID, you can generate a revision testament.

If I understand you correctly, you are claiming that you are not really 
identifying a revision, but a revision _at a certain place with a 
place-dependent number_. This conflicts with my understanding of a 
revision.

No, I am claiming that a revision at a certain place with a
place-dependent number is one name for a revision, but it may have other
names.

quoted

If that's true of Git, then it certainly has a simple namespace.  Using 
eight-digit hex values doesn't sound simple to me, though.

It depends on your usage. If you want to do anything interesting, like 
assure that you have the correct version, or assure that two different 
person's tags actually tag the same revision, there is no simpler 
representation.

I can use the 'bzr missing' command to check whether my branch is in
sync with a remote branch.  Or I can use the 'pull' command to update my
branch to a given revno in a remote branch.

quoted

That sounds right.  So those branches are persistent, and can be worked
on independently?

Of course! Persistence (and reliability) are the number one goal of git. 
Performance is the next one.

You'd be surprised.  When we last spoke to the Mercurial team, Mercurial
didn't support multiple persistent branches in one repository.  Pulling
from a remote repository could join two branches into one.  I'm told
they're fixing that now.

quoted

You'll note we referred to that bevhavior on the page.  We don't think
what Git does is the same as supporting renames.  AIUI, some Git users
feel the same way.

Oh, we start another flamewar again?

I'd hope not.  It sounds as though you feel that supporting renames in
the data representation is *wrong*, and therefore it should be an insult
to you if we said that Git fully supported renames.

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFNGVq0F+nu1YWqI0RAsXiAJ9hjH2sQGG3E9oIYP2SxscXvVQsJACdHtkj
+r37JPSjbQCuchPo08P3px8=
=5MHE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----