Re: VCS comparison table

Jakub Narebski wrote:

On 10/27/06, Andreas Ericsson [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Horst H. von Brand wrote:

quoted

Jakub Narebski [off-list ref] wrote:

[...]

quoted

I'd rather split "Supports Renames" into engine part (does SCM
remember/detect that rename took place _as_ rename, not remember/detect
it as copiying+deletion; something other than rename) and user 
interface
part: can user easily deal with renames (this includes merging and

viewing file

quoted

quoted

quoted

history).

I think that what to tool does in its guts is completely irrelevant, 
what
is important is what the user sees. Sadly, it seems hard to describe
exactly what is meant/wanted here.

Agreed. I'd rather make the definition "Can users, after a rename has
taken place, follow the history of the file-contents across renames?".
Mainly because this is clearly unambiguous, doesn't involve
implementation details and only weighs what really counts: User-visible
capabilities.

[...]

But equally important for user is another question related to
"Supporting Renames".
Namely detection of renames during merge and detection of conflict 
during merge
is what I would consider minimal "Merge Renames Support". Causing 
information
to be lost is having no "Merge Renames Support". To have "Yes" in this
column SCM
have to resolve conflict at least in obvious cases, and "Yes!" if it
can remember
resolution of merge conflict involving renames ;-).

True.

quoted

IMNSHO, I'd rather have all the features in the list be along the lines
of "Can users/admins/random-boon do X?" and instead of "yes/no" list the
number of commands/the amount of time required to achieve the desired
effect. This would set a clear limit and put most terminology issues out
of the way.

This would make the comparison table less clear, unfortunately.

True that. Perhaps just stick with Yes/No and have a timing table to 
compare merge times, multi-parent merge times and stuff like that.

quoted

quoted

[...]

quoted

19. Ease of Use. Hmmm... I don't know for Git. I personally find it 
very
easy to use, but I have not much experiences with other SCM. I 
wonder why
Bazaar has "No" there...

Extremely subjective. Easy to learn doesn't cut it either.

This one just needs to go. Could possibly be replaced with "Has
tutorial/documentation online" or some such. No SCM is really intuitive
to users that haven't experienced any of them before, so the only thing
that really matters is how much documentation one can find online and
how up-to-date it is.

For example SCM can be easy to use but at the cost of simplifications
and limited useness.

On the other side basic concept behind some SCM might be more
or less understandable...

Yes, but it will always be based on personal opinion and that's why it 
can never be measured in an unbiased way. It would be like playing 
Trivial Pursuit and getting the question "Which 20'th century author 
wrote the best books?". There's actually two problems with that 
question, but the important one is that it can't be answered correctly 
in this wonderful world we live in where everyone has their own opinion.

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se