From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sean Subject: Re: VCS comparison table Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 19:25:39 -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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Carl Worth , bazaar-ng@lists.canonical.com, git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Oct 22 01:25:55 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 1GbQDs-0000Pa-54 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 22 Oct 2006 01:25:48 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161093AbWJUXZm (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Oct 2006 19:25:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161156AbWJUXZm (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Oct 2006 19:25:42 -0400 Received: from bayc1-pasmtp03.bayc1.hotmail.com ([65.54.191.163]:63801 "EHLO BAYC1-PASMTP03.bayc1.hotmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161093AbWJUXZl (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Oct 2006 19:25:41 -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-PASMTP03.bayc1.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:25:40 -0700 Received: from guru.attic.local ([10.10.10.28]) by linux1.attic.local with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GbPHf-0002ZY-F2; Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:25:39 -0400 To: Jeff Licquia Message-Id: <20061021192539.4a00cc3e.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> In-Reply-To: <1161472030.9241.174.camel@localhost.localdomain> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.9 (GTK+ 2.10.4; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Oct 2006 23:25:41.0286 (UTC) FILETIME=[3944EC60:01C6F568] Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 19:07:10 -0400 Jeff Licquia wrote: > Several of us have pointed to the (branch, revno) combination as a > sufficiently reliable communication method, and we may be right about > that. But, so far, those revnos have been entirely local to a single > branch, and have also been as absolutely reliable (locally speaking) as > a revid; the branch "foo" may go away, but while it's around, "revision > 14 of branch foo" will always mean the same thing. But we're now adding > the 0.12 revno scheme, with "global" revnos. Will those be as reliable? > Will "revision 2418.1.4 on bzr.dev" work as well as "revision 2418 on > bzr.dev" does now? There is no need to speculate, the numbers will only be reliable on a local basis. So yes you can force a single repository like bzr.dev to always "win" any conflict and force the other guy to change ie. a central repo model. But they can not be maintained consistently in a truly distributed system. As Linus pointed out that is fact, not opinion. Now the opinion of the bzr people is that it doesn't matter and that for all important cases it works well enough. If all the people who don't like the look of sha1's self select bzr, so be it, but that doesn't change the fundamental argument. But just to reiterate, the design of Git is flexible enough to where you can automatically generate "revno" tags for every commit in your repo _today_. You'd end up with the exact same problems that bzr will eventually hit, but Git already has everything you need today to refer to every commit in your repo as r1 r2 r3 r4 etc... Sean From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sean Subject: Re: VCS comparison table Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 19:25:39 -0400 Message-ID: <20061021192539.4a00cc3e.seanlkml__25816.3545084701$1161473173$gmane$org@sympatico.ca> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Carl Worth , bazaar-ng@lists.canonical.com, git@vger.kernel.org X-From: bazaar-ng-bounces@lists.canonical.com Sun Oct 22 01:26:12 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 1GbQE7-0000SR-69 for gcvbg-bazaar-ng@m.gmane.org; Sun, 22 Oct 2006 01:26:04 +0200 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=esperanza.ubuntu.com) by esperanza.ubuntu.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GbQDs-0007bM-CJ; Sun, 22 Oct 2006 00:25:48 +0100 Received: from bayc1-pasmtp03.bayc1.hotmail.com ([65.54.191.163]) by esperanza.ubuntu.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GbQDm-0007b3-Pr for bazaar-ng@lists.canonical.com; Sun, 22 Oct 2006 00:25:44 +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-PASMTP03.bayc1.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:25:40 -0700 Received: from guru.attic.local ([10.10.10.28]) by linux1.attic.local with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GbPHf-0002ZY-F2; Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:25:39 -0400 To: Jeff Licquia Message-Id: <20061021192539.4a00cc3e.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> In-Reply-To: <1161472030.9241.174.camel@localhost.localdomain> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.9 (GTK+ 2.10.4; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Oct 2006 23:25:41.0286 (UTC) FILETIME=[3944EC60:01C6F568] 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 19:07:10 -0400 Jeff Licquia wrote: > Several of us have pointed to the (branch, revno) combination as a > sufficiently reliable communication method, and we may be right about > that. But, so far, those revnos have been entirely local to a single > branch, and have also been as absolutely reliable (locally speaking) as > a revid; the branch "foo" may go away, but while it's around, "revision > 14 of branch foo" will always mean the same thing. But we're now adding > the 0.12 revno scheme, with "global" revnos. Will those be as reliable? > Will "revision 2418.1.4 on bzr.dev" work as well as "revision 2418 on > bzr.dev" does now? There is no need to speculate, the numbers will only be reliable on a local basis. So yes you can force a single repository like bzr.dev to always "win" any conflict and force the other guy to change ie. a central repo model. But they can not be maintained consistently in a truly distributed system. As Linus pointed out that is fact, not opinion. Now the opinion of the bzr people is that it doesn't matter and that for all important cases it works well enough. If all the people who don't like the look of sha1's self select bzr, so be it, but that doesn't change the fundamental argument. But just to reiterate, the design of Git is flexible enough to where you can automatically generate "revno" tags for every commit in your repo _today_. You'd end up with the exact same problems that bzr will eventually hit, but Git already has everything you need today to refer to every commit in your repo as r1 r2 r3 r4 etc... Sean