Echoing a post: bzr vs. git

[Matthew D. Fuller]

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 06:00:54PM +0900 I heard the voice of
David Cournapeau, and lo! it spake thus:
> 
> (the example of commit 299.1.4 being after 300 in one branch).

At the time the dotted revnos came in, I preferred the idea of
numbering them after the merge rev when they came in, rather than the
mainline rev in their ancestry.  Still do, actually; it has a number
of properties I think are more useful (and requires less history
walking to enumerate, as a bonus).


> IOW, if you use parallel branches, revno idea breaks horribly IMHO,
> and it does not worth the simplicity it brings otherwise. I would go
> as far as saying that that's the only point of my post which is not
> subjective.

Contrarily, I've never had any troubles out of revnos, and I've always
found them to make practically everything easier.  The cases where
I've needed to make a reference to a revision without the context of a
branch have been rare (I could probably count the times in the last
year on one hand, and have fingers left over), and it's easy to use
revids for that.  I've never encountered any difficulty knowing when
to use which, or troubles throwing revnos around.

Now, I could imagine that they could get a little confusing when
referencing a number of branches at once in the same command line.
But luckily[0] that Just Doesn't Happen in bzr...



[0] FSVO


-- 
Matthew Fuller     (MF4839)   |  fullermd at over-yonder.net
Systems/Network Administrator |  http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/
           On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.