From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jakub Narebski Subject: Re: VCS comparison table Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 03:28:30 +0200 Message-ID: <200610180328.31234.jnareb@gmail.com> References: <9e4733910610140807p633f5660q49dd2d2111c9f5fe@mail.gmail.com> <20061018000026.GH20017@pasky.or.cz> <45357596.8050702@utoronto.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Matthieu Moy , bazaar-ng@lists.canonical.com, Linus Torvalds , Andreas Ericsson , Petr Baudis , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: bazaar-ng-bounces@lists.canonical.com Wed Oct 18 03:28:01 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 1Ga0Dx-0007Km-D0 for gcvbg-bazaar-ng@m.gmane.org; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 03:28:01 +0200 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=esperanza.ubuntu.com) by esperanza.ubuntu.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ga0Dw-0003py-PH; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 02:28:00 +0100 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.175]) by esperanza.ubuntu.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ga0Du-0003ps-Ue for bazaar-ng@lists.canonical.com; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 02:27:59 +0100 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 36so75926ugg for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 18:27:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.67.105.19 with SMTP id h19mr2548928ugm; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 18:27:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host-81-190-17-207.torun.mm.pl ( [81.190.17.207]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id x26sm309175ugc.2006.10.17.18.27.57; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 18:27:57 -0700 (PDT) To: Aaron Bentley User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 In-Reply-To: <45357596.8050702@utoronto.ca> Content-Disposition: inline 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: Aaron Bentley wrote: > Petr Baudis wrote: >> >> Another aspect of this is that Git (Linus ;) is very focused on getting >> the history right, nice and clean (though it does not _mandate_ it and >> you can just wildly do one commit after another; it just provides tools >> to easily do it). > > Yes, rebasing is very uncommon in the bzr community. We would rather > evaluate the complete change than walk through its history. (Bundles > only show the changes you made, not the changes you merged from the > mainline.) > > In an earlier form, bundles contained a patch for every revision, and > people *hated* reading them. So there's definitely a cultural > difference there. Take for example "[PATCH 0/6] ref deletion and D/F conflict avoidance with packed-refs." http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/28150/focus=28154 > This series cleans up the area that was affected by the recent > addition of "packed-refs". Christian Couder and Jeff King CC'ed > since they seem to be touching in the general vicinity of the > code these patches touch. > > [1/6] ref locking: allow 'foo' when 'foo/bar' used to exist but not anymore. > [2/6] refs: minor restructuring of cached refs data. > [3/6] lock_ref_sha1(): do not sometimes error() and sometimes die(). > [4/6] lock_ref_sha1(): check D/F conflict with packed ref when creating. > [5/6] delete_ref(): delete packed ref > [6/6] git-branch: remove D/F check done by hand. > > I opted for removing from the packed-ref file when a ref that is > packed is deleted. Isn't it easier to review than "bundle", aka. mega-patch?