VCS comparison table

[Aaron Bentley]

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

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Aaron Bentley wrote:
>> 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.

> I pretty much _guarantee_ that a "number" is not a valid way to uniquely 
> name a revision in a distributed environment, though. I bet the "number" 
> really only names a revision in one _single_ repository, right?

Right.  That's why I said all revisions can be named by a URL + a
number, because it's the combination of the URL + a number that is
unique.  (In bzr, each branch has a URL.)

> In contrast, in git, a revision is a revision is a revision. 

I agree that a revision is a revision, but I don't think that's a
property unique to git. :-)

> If you give 
> the SHA1 name, it's well-defined even between different repositories, and 
> you can tell somebody that "revision XYZ is when the problem started", and 
> they'll know _exactly_ which revision it is, even if they don't have your 
> particular repository.

When two people have copies of the same revision, it's usually because
they are each pulling from a common branch, and so the revision in that
branch can be named.  Bazaar does use unique ids internally, but it's
extremely rare that the user needs to use them.

> Now _that_ is true simplicity. It does automatically mean that the names 
> are a bit longer, but in this case, "longer" really _does_ mean "simpler".
> 
> If you want a short, human-readable name, you _tag_ it. It takes all of a 
> hundredth of a second to to or so.

But tags have local meaning only, unless someone has access to your
repository, right?

>>> About "checkouts", i.e. working directories with repository elsewhere:
>>> you can use GIT_DIR environmental variable or "git --git-dir" option,
>>> or symlinks, and if Nguyen Thai Ngoc D proposal to have .gitdir/.git
>>> "symref"-like file to point to repository passes, we can use that.
>> It sounds like the .gitdir/.git proposal would give Git "checkouts", by
>> our meaning of the term.
> 
> Well, in the git world, it's really just one shared repository that has 
> separate branch-namespaces, and separate working trees (aka "checkouts"). 
> So yes, it probably matches what bazaar would call a checkout.

The key thing about a checkout is that it's stored in a different
location from its repository.  This provides a few benefits:

- - you can publish a repository without publishing its working tree,
  possibly using standard mirroring tools like rsync.

- - you can have working trees on local systems while having the
  repository on a remote system.  This makes it easy to work on one
  logical branch from multiple locations, without getting out of sync.

- - you can use a checkout to maintain a local mirror of a read-only
  branch (I do this with http://bazaar-vcs.com/bzr/bzr.dev).

> Almost nobody seems to actually use it that way in git - it's mostly more 
> efficient to just have five different branches in the same working tree, 
> and switch between them. When you switch between branches in git, git only 
> rewrites the part of your working tree that actually changed, so switching 
> is extremely efficient even with a large repo.

You can operate that way in bzr too, but I find it nicer to have one
checkout for each active branch, plus a checkout of bzr.dev.  Our switch
command also rewrites only the changed part of the working tree.

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

iD8DBQFFNFrv0F+nu1YWqI0RAgBHAJ9XpmdvuCNDysxFhnyeCmkEG/z0ggCggMsJ
WyW6lqGMokh0k0It1KOdgtk=
=L1SR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----