VCS comparison table
aaron.bentley at utoronto.ca
Tue Oct 17 06:08:59 BST 2006
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Johannes Schindelin 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.
> 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
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
>> 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
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.
>> 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.
>> 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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v188.8.131.52 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the bazaar