From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sean Subject: Re: VCS comparison table Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:47:04 -0400 Message-ID: References: <9e4733910610140807p633f5660q49dd2d2111c9f5fe@mail.gmail.com> <45345AEF.6070107@utoronto.ca> <200610171030.35854.jnareb@gmail.com> <20061017073839.3728d1e7.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> <20061021141328.GE29843@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20061021102346.9cd3abce.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> <20061021183428.GB29927@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Linus Torvalds , bazaar-ng@lists.canonical.com, git@vger.kernel.org, Matthieu Moy , Jakub Narebski X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Oct 21 20:47:22 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 1GbLsH-00070A-7p for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:47:13 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1766633AbWJUSrK (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:47:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1766576AbWJUSrJ (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:47:09 -0400 Received: from bayc1-pasmtp05.bayc1.hotmail.com ([65.54.191.165]:40177 "EHLO BAYC1-PASMTP05.bayc1.hotmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423368AbWJUSrH (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:47:07 -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-PASMTP05.bayc1.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 21 Oct 2006 11:47:06 -0700 Received: from guru.attic.local ([10.10.10.28]) by linux1.attic.local with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GbKw4-0002DC-TP; Sat, 21 Oct 2006 13:47:04 -0400 To: Jan Hudec Message-Id: <20061021144704.71d75e83.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> In-Reply-To: <20061021183428.GB29927@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.9 (GTK+ 2.10.4; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Oct 2006 18:47:06.0425 (UTC) FILETIME=[4E6F8A90:01C6F541] Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:34:28 +0200 Jan Hudec wrote: > For one think I, like others already expressed, think difference should > be made between 'centralized' and 'star-topology'. Subversion is > centralized -- I don't think bzr is biased towards that kind of > centralization, though it provides tools (bound branches) to make it > easy. A star-topology assumes there is a central server from which the points of the start emerge. It is very much a centralized model and one that bzr is clearly optimized for. The difference between bzr and say cvs is that bzr provides offline abilities where checkins to the central server can be deferred by checking them in locally first. The bzr bias towards this model is implicit in its affection for revnos, which depend on a central repository to syncronize them for all the points of the star. [...] > On the other hand git is biased away from centralized (as in subversion > is centralized) in that it takes extra work to make sure you are always > synchronized (while bzr has bound branches to do the checking for you). > For open-source development, centralized is a wrong way to go, but > people use version control tools for other purposes as well and for some > of them staying synchronized is important. Please reconsider this point, Git can be configured to push every commit to a central server immediately. It's just that such a model is so inferior in almost every way, that it's not typically done. Sean From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sean Subject: Re: VCS comparison table Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:47:04 -0400 Message-ID: <20061021144704.71d75e83.seanlkml__27217.2001692981$1161456490$gmane$org@sympatico.ca> References: <9e4733910610140807p633f5660q49dd2d2111c9f5fe@mail.gmail.com> <45345AEF.6070107@utoronto.ca> <200610171030.35854.jnareb@gmail.com> <20061017073839.3728d1e7.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> <20061021141328.GE29843@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20061021102346.9cd3abce.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> <20061021183428.GB29927@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Linus Torvalds , bazaar-ng@lists.canonical.com, Matthieu Moy , git@vger.kernel.org, Jakub Narebski X-From: bazaar-ng-bounces@lists.canonical.com Sat Oct 21 20:48:07 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 1GbLt8-00077Q-C9 for gcvbg-bazaar-ng@m.gmane.org; Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:48:07 +0200 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=esperanza.ubuntu.com) by esperanza.ubuntu.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GbLt1-000120-So; Sat, 21 Oct 2006 19:47:59 +0100 Received: from bayc1-pasmtp05.bayc1.hotmail.com ([65.54.191.165]) by esperanza.ubuntu.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GbLsC-00010T-3i for bazaar-ng@lists.canonical.com; Sat, 21 Oct 2006 19:47:08 +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-PASMTP05.bayc1.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 21 Oct 2006 11:47:06 -0700 Received: from guru.attic.local ([10.10.10.28]) by linux1.attic.local with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GbKw4-0002DC-TP; Sat, 21 Oct 2006 13:47:04 -0400 To: Jan Hudec Message-Id: <20061021144704.71d75e83.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> In-Reply-To: <20061021183428.GB29927@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.9 (GTK+ 2.10.4; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Oct 2006 18:47:06.0425 (UTC) FILETIME=[4E6F8A90:01C6F541] 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 Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:34:28 +0200 Jan Hudec wrote: > For one think I, like others already expressed, think difference should > be made between 'centralized' and 'star-topology'. Subversion is > centralized -- I don't think bzr is biased towards that kind of > centralization, though it provides tools (bound branches) to make it > easy. A star-topology assumes there is a central server from which the points of the start emerge. It is very much a centralized model and one that bzr is clearly optimized for. The difference between bzr and say cvs is that bzr provides offline abilities where checkins to the central server can be deferred by checking them in locally first. The bzr bias towards this model is implicit in its affection for revnos, which depend on a central repository to syncronize them for all the points of the star. [...] > On the other hand git is biased away from centralized (as in subversion > is centralized) in that it takes extra work to make sure you are always > synchronized (while bzr has bound branches to do the checking for you). > For open-source development, centralized is a wrong way to go, but > people use version control tools for other purposes as well and for some > of them staying synchronized is important. Please reconsider this point, Git can be configured to push every commit to a central server immediately. It's just that such a model is so inferior in almost every way, that it's not typically done. Sean