VCS comparison table

[Jakub Narebski]

Aaron Bentley wrote:
> Carl Worth wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 03:28:30 +0200, Jakub Narebski wrote:
>>> Isn't it easier to review than "bundle", aka. mega-patch?
>>
>> There are even more important reasons to prefer a series of
>> micro-commits over a mega-patch than just ease of merging.
> 
> A bundle isn't a mega-patch.  It contains all the source revisions.  So
> when you merge or pull it, you get all the original revisions in your
> repository.

But what patch reviewer see is a mega-patch showing the changeset
of a whole "bundle", isn't it?
[...]
>> Now, I do admit that it is often useful to take the overall view of a
>> patch series being submitted. This is often the case when a patch
>> series is in some sub-module of the code for which I don't have as
>> much direct involvement. In cases like that I will often do review
>> only of the diff between the tips of the mainline and the branch of
>> interest, (or if I trust the maintainer enough, perhaps just the
>> diffstat between the two). But I'm still very glad that what lands in
>> the history is the series of independent changes, and not one mega
>> commit.
> 
> So the difference here is that bundles preserve the original commits the
> changes came from, so even though it's presented as an overview, you
> still have a series of independent changes in your history.

I think it is much better to review series of patches commit by commit;
besides it allows to correct some inner patches before applying the whole
series or drop one of patches in series (and it happened from time to time
on git mailing list).

So if git introduces bundles, I think they would take form of series
of "patch" mails + introductory email with series description (currently
it is not saved anywhere), shortlog, diffstat and perhaps more metainfo
like bundle parent (which I think should be email form of branch really),
tags introduced etc.
-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland