VCS comparison table

[Jakub Narebski]

Matthew D. Fuller wrote:

[cut]
> Obviously, this is a totally foreign mentality to git, and that's
> great because it seems to work for you.  I can see advantages to it,
> and I can conceive of situations where I might want that behavior.
> But, in my day-to-day VCS use, I don't hit them, which is why I keep
> typing 'bzr' instead of 'git' when I annoyingly need to type 'cvs'.

Well, not exactly. If you are interested in your changes, i.e. commits 
generated by you, you can (with new git) filter commits by author name,
e.g. 'git log --author="$(git repo-config --get user.email)"'. If you
are interested in commits which you entered into repository, you can
(with new git) filter commits by commiter.

If you are interested in history of your branch, you can enable reflog
for this branch. This is of course totally local information, and 
doesn't get propagated. It records things like commits, merges, 
rebasing, starting branch anew, amending commits etc. Because it
is separate from branch and DAG of revisions, we can do fast-forward
and have identical DAG while having information about local history.

Besides git users are used to refer to graphical history viewers,
including gitk (Tcl/Tk, in git repository), qgit (Qt), gitview (GTK+, in 
contrib/, less popular), git-show-branch (core git, strange UI, command 
line), tig (ncurses) for more complicated cases.


I wonder if searching for one's own commits isn't the sign that
the project is of one-main-developer size (i.e. small project,
without large number of distributed contributors). I think in large 
project you rather ask of history of specified file, of specified part 
of project (specified directory), ask about why certain change was 
introduced etc.

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland