From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sean Subject: Re: VCS comparison table Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:06:55 -0400 Message-ID: References: <9e4733910610140807p633f5660q49dd2d2111c9f5fe@mail.gmail.com> <45345AEF.6070107@utoronto.ca> <200610171030.35854.jnareb@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: bazaar-ng@lists.canonical.com, git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Oct 17 17:07:10 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GZqWz-0002PP-0U for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:07:01 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751113AbWJQPG6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:06:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751117AbWJQPG6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:06:58 -0400 Received: from bayc1-pasmtp07.bayc1.hotmail.com ([65.54.191.167]:33848 "EHLO BAYC1-PASMTP07.CEZ.ICE") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751113AbWJQPG5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:06:57 -0400 X-Originating-IP: [65.93.43.81] X-Originating-Email: [seanlkml@sympatico.ca] Received: from linux1.attic.local ([65.93.43.81]) by BAYC1-PASMTP07.CEZ.ICE over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 17 Oct 2006 08:12:42 -0700 Received: from guru.attic.local ([10.10.10.28]) by linux1.attic.local with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GZpap-00067R-9n; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 10:06:55 -0400 To: Matthieu Moy Message-Id: <20061017110655.f7bcf3f1.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.9 (GTK+ 2.10.4; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Oct 2006 15:12:42.0453 (UTC) FILETIME=[B1423050:01C6F1FE] Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:19:46 +0200 Matthieu Moy wrote: > Sure. As I said before, the little add-on of checkouts is that you say > once "I don't want to do local commit here", and bzr reminds you this > each time you commit. Well, where it can make a difference is that it > does it in a transactional way, that is, you don't have that little > window between the time you pull and the time you push your next > commit. But this would really be bad luck ;-). Yeah, it would be bad luck, but Git wouldn't actually let the push succeed if someone had changed the upstream repo in that small window. It would complain that your push wasn't a fast forward and ask you to update before pushing. > Sure. And at least, if you want to prove that your decentralized SCM > is the best, you'd better look at features other than the ability to > commit on a local branch ;-). If you want a _real_ flamewar, better > talk about rename management or revision identity. > > The thing is that most people migrated from CVS/svn, so they found > their new SCM to be incredibly better the existing. But it's generally > not _so_ much better than the other modern alternatives ;-). (and > don't forget to thank Darcs and Monotone who brought most of the good > ideas you and I are using) Heh, true enough. And the fact is they're all "borrowing" the best ideas from one another. All of a sudden the others are all getting git-like bisect and gitk guis. And of course Linus has said that he got quite a bit of inspiration from Monotone originally. Beyond the distributed offline nature of using Git, the killer "feature" for me is its raw speed and flexibility[1]. It's really nice to be able to branch in under a second and try out a line of development etc. Maybe this is just as easy in Bazaar but it's not true of say Mercurial. Honestly, I just can't imagine any other SCM meeting my needs better than Git. So I have a hard time taking complaints about rename management or revision identity seriously. While they don't affect my usage, IMHO the two biggest failings of Git are its lack of a shallow clone and its reliance on shell and other scripting languages so there is no native Windows version. I'm sure both of these areas are handled better by Bazaar and/or some of the other new SCMs where they'd be a better choice than Git. Sean [1] As an aside, I don't understand why bazaar pushes the idea of "plugins". For instance someone mentioned that bazaar has a bisect "plugin". Well Git was able to add a bisect "command" without needing a plugin architecture.. so i'm at a loss as to why plugins are seen as an advantage. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sean Subject: Re: VCS comparison table Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:06:55 -0400 Message-ID: <20061017110655.f7bcf3f1.seanlkml__7594.06292713738$1161336447$gmane$org@sympatico.ca> References: <9e4733910610140807p633f5660q49dd2d2111c9f5fe@mail.gmail.com> <45345AEF.6070107@utoronto.ca> <200610171030.35854.jnareb@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: bazaar-ng@lists.canonical.com, git@vger.kernel.org X-From: bazaar-ng-bounces@lists.canonical.com Fri Oct 20 11:27:21 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvbg-bazaar-ng@m.gmane.org Received: from esperanza.ubuntu.com ([82.211.81.173]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gaqen-0001gO-3q for gcvbg-bazaar-ng@m.gmane.org; Fri, 20 Oct 2006 11:27:13 +0200 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=esperanza.ubuntu.com) by esperanza.ubuntu.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GapNK-0007lH-9O; Fri, 20 Oct 2006 09:05:06 +0100 Received: from bayc1-pasmtp07.bayc1.hotmail.com ([65.54.191.167] helo=BAYC1-PASMTP07.CEZ.ICE) by esperanza.ubuntu.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GZqWw-0005bH-AW for bazaar-ng@lists.canonical.com; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:06:58 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [65.93.43.81] X-Originating-Email: [seanlkml@sympatico.ca] Received: from linux1.attic.local ([65.93.43.81]) by BAYC1-PASMTP07.CEZ.ICE over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 17 Oct 2006 08:12:42 -0700 Received: from guru.attic.local ([10.10.10.28]) by linux1.attic.local with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GZpap-00067R-9n; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 10:06:55 -0400 To: Matthieu Moy Message-Id: <20061017110655.f7bcf3f1.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.9 (GTK+ 2.10.4; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Oct 2006 15:12:42.0453 (UTC) FILETIME=[B1423050:01C6F1FE] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 09:04:04 +0100 X-BeenThere: bazaar-ng@lists.canonical.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.8 Precedence: list List-Id: bazaar-ng discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: bazaar-ng-bounces@lists.canonical.com Errors-To: bazaar-ng-bounces@lists.canonical.com Archived-At: On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:19:46 +0200 Matthieu Moy wrote: > Sure. As I said before, the little add-on of checkouts is that you say > once "I don't want to do local commit here", and bzr reminds you this > each time you commit. Well, where it can make a difference is that it > does it in a transactional way, that is, you don't have that little > window between the time you pull and the time you push your next > commit. But this would really be bad luck ;-). Yeah, it would be bad luck, but Git wouldn't actually let the push succeed if someone had changed the upstream repo in that small window. It would complain that your push wasn't a fast forward and ask you to update before pushing. > Sure. And at least, if you want to prove that your decentralized SCM > is the best, you'd better look at features other than the ability to > commit on a local branch ;-). If you want a _real_ flamewar, better > talk about rename management or revision identity. > > The thing is that most people migrated from CVS/svn, so they found > their new SCM to be incredibly better the existing. But it's generally > not _so_ much better than the other modern alternatives ;-). (and > don't forget to thank Darcs and Monotone who brought most of the good > ideas you and I are using) Heh, true enough. And the fact is they're all "borrowing" the best ideas from one another. All of a sudden the others are all getting git-like bisect and gitk guis. And of course Linus has said that he got quite a bit of inspiration from Monotone originally. Beyond the distributed offline nature of using Git, the killer "feature" for me is its raw speed and flexibility[1]. It's really nice to be able to branch in under a second and try out a line of development etc. Maybe this is just as easy in Bazaar but it's not true of say Mercurial. Honestly, I just can't imagine any other SCM meeting my needs better than Git. So I have a hard time taking complaints about rename management or revision identity seriously. While they don't affect my usage, IMHO the two biggest failings of Git are its lack of a shallow clone and its reliance on shell and other scripting languages so there is no native Windows version. I'm sure both of these areas are handled better by Bazaar and/or some of the other new SCMs where they'd be a better choice than Git. Sean [1] As an aside, I don't understand why bazaar pushes the idea of "plugins". For instance someone mentioned that bazaar has a bisect "plugin". Well Git was able to add a bisect "command" without needing a plugin architecture.. so i'm at a loss as to why plugins are seen as an advantage.