VCS comparison table

[Jakub Narebski]

Aaron Bentley wrote:
> Petr Baudis wrote:
>>
>> Another aspect of this is that Git (Linus ;) is very focused on getting
>> the history right, nice and clean (though it does not _mandate_ it and
>> you can just wildly do one commit after another; it just provides tools
>> to easily do it).
> 
> Yes, rebasing is very uncommon in the bzr community.  We would rather
> evaluate the complete change than walk through its history.  (Bundles
> only show the changes you made, not the changes you merged from the
> mainline.)
> 
> In an earlier form, bundles contained a patch for every revision, and
> people *hated* reading them.  So there's definitely a cultural
> difference there.

Take for example 
 "[PATCH 0/6] ref deletion and D/F conflict avoidance with packed-refs."
 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/28150/focus=28154

> This series cleans up the area that was affected by the recent
> addition of "packed-refs".  Christian Couder and Jeff King CC'ed
> since they seem to be touching in the general vicinity of the
> code these patches touch.
> 
> [1/6] ref locking: allow 'foo' when 'foo/bar' used to exist but not anymore.
> [2/6] refs: minor restructuring of cached refs data.
> [3/6] lock_ref_sha1(): do not sometimes error() and sometimes die().
> [4/6] lock_ref_sha1(): check D/F conflict with packed ref when creating.
> [5/6] delete_ref(): delete packed ref
> [6/6] git-branch: remove D/F check done by hand.
> 
> I opted for removing from the packed-ref file when a ref that is
> packed is deleted.

Isn't it easier to review than "bundle", aka. mega-patch?
-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland