VCS comparison table

[Martin Langhoff]

On 10/24/06, Erik Bågfors <zindar at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's Erik :)

Sorry Erik!

> Let's make one thing clear.  Revnos are NOT stored with the revision,
> they are not "names" of the revision.  They are basically just
> shortcuts to specific revisions, that only makes sence in the context
> of a branch.

My bad. The revnos examples discussed looked quite Arch-like. As Arch
took them seriously, I thought bzr did too.

Probably quite a few people here thought as much, and got hot under
the t-shirt about it ;-)

Now, the thing about they shorthand is that we have quite a few means
of using shorthand in GIT that don't rely on revnos. We have the whole
^branchname stuff. And when you are looking at gitk it's pretty
obvious which are your recent "local" commits.


...


> 2. treating "leftmost" parrent special is bad/good

> 2. This is something I do care about.  For me, this is the only
> logical way of doing it. It might be because I am used to it now, but
> when I started to look at bzr/hg/git/darcs/etc, I just got a so much
> more clear view of the history when running a standard log command,
> that it was one of the first things that attracted me to bzr. This is
> just a user talking.
> There might be technical reasons why it's better to not do it, but for
> me it works the way I expect, therefore I'm happy

Can you give us a quick example of why you got such a clearer picture?

> 3. plugins are useless/useful

Hmmmm. It's more of a unix/C/pipes tradition vs dynamically typed &
compiled scripting language tradition.

> 4. And now, storing branch information should be done manually (if
> wanted) and not automatically.

> 4. No comment.

Probably not. But if someone is using branchnames to identify "lines
of work" and hoping that metadata will remain attached there, it's
probably a bad long-term approach.

But following what you said earlier about that info being transient
and "local", then I was 200% wrong, and thinking of Arch/Bazaar usage
patterns.

cheers,


martin