VCS comparison table

[Jakub Narebski]

Robert Collins wrote:

> On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 01:45 +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>> 
>> If you really, really think about it: it makes much more sense to record 
>> your intention in the commit message. So, instead of recording for _every_ 
>> _single_ file in folder1/ that it was moved to folder2/, it is better to 
>> say that you moved folder1/ to folder2/ _because of some special
>> reason_!
> 
> Just a small nit here: bzr does /not/ record the move of every file: it
> records the rename of folder1 to folder2. One piece of data is all thats
> recorded - no new manifest for the subdirectory is needed.
> 
> Of course, a user can choose to move all the contents of a folder and
> not the folder itself - its up to the user.
> 
> By recording the folder rename rather than the contents rename, we get
> merges of new files added to folder1 in other branches come into folder2
> automatically, without needing to do arbitrarily deep history processing
> to determine that.

Hmmm... I wonder how well git manages that (merge with renamed directory).

  folder1/a  -->  folder2/a  --------> folder2/a
  folder1/b  -->  folder2/b       /    folder2/b
      \                          /     folder2/c
       \------->  folder1/a  ---/
                  folder1/b
                  folder1/c


I wonder how bzr manages "separate some files into subdirectory" (and how
well git does that), i.e. we have

   sub-file1
   sub-file2
   filea
   fileb

In the 'main' branch we separated "sub-*" files into subdirectory

   sub/file1
   sub/file2
   filea
   fileb

How would that merge with adding new sub-* file on the branch to be merged?

   sub-file1
   sub-file2
   sub-file3
   filea
   fileb


Or how bzr manages sub-level movement, such as splitting file into two,
or joining two files into one file.


P.S. is anyone working on --follow option for renames following path
limiting?
-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git