From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sean Subject: Re: VCS comparison table Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 21:26:45 -0400 Message-ID: References: <45357CC3.4040507@utoronto.ca> <4536EC93.9050305@utoronto.ca> <87lkncev90.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <453792A8.1010700@utoronto.ca> <878xjc2qeb.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <453803E6.2060309@utoronto.ca> <87ods727pn.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <45382120.9060702@utoronto.ca> <87irie1wvv.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <20061021130111.GL75501@over-yonder.net> <87ac3p1jn7.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <1161472030.9241.174.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061021192539.4a00cc3e.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> <1161478005.9241.210.camel@localhost.localdomain> 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 Sun Oct 22 03:27:05 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 1GbS7B-0003LC-RO for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 22 Oct 2006 03:27:02 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030190AbWJVB0s (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Oct 2006 21:26:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030395AbWJVB0s (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Oct 2006 21:26:48 -0400 Received: from bayc1-pasmtp08.bayc1.hotmail.com ([65.54.191.168]:20012 "EHLO BAYC1-PASMTP08.CEZ.ICE") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030190AbWJVB0s (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Oct 2006 21:26:48 -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-PASMTP08.CEZ.ICE over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:35:30 -0700 Received: from guru.attic.local ([10.10.10.28]) by linux1.attic.local with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GbRAr-0002jD-R8; Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:26:45 -0400 To: Jeff Licquia Message-Id: <20061021212645.2f9ba751.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> In-Reply-To: <1161478005.9241.210.camel@localhost.localdomain> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.9 (GTK+ 2.10.4; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Oct 2006 01:35:30.0421 (UTC) FILETIME=[5BF49A50:01C6F57A] Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:46:45 -0400 Jeff Licquia wrote: > Which opinion is this? The opinion that old-style local revnos aren't a > big deal, or that new-style dotted revnos aren't a big deal? > > I suspect you're conflating the two, and interpreting certainty for the > former as certainty for the latter. Though I don't mind being > corrected. The archives have all the posts of people claiming that there were no issues with revno's and fully distributed models. But it's okay, the issue really isn't all that important in the big scheme of things. Bzr and Git have much more in common than they have differences. I reject that revno's are an example of where bzr is superior than Git, but there are no doubt examples where I would concede that bzr has the edge. Cheers, Sean