From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sean Subject: Re: VCS comparison table Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:40:41 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1161472030.9241.174.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061021192539.4a00cc3e.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> <1161478005.9241.210.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061021212645.2f9ba751.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> <1161487417.9241.220.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061021233014.d4525a1d.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> <20061022100028.GQ75501@over-yonder.net> <20061022074422.50dcbee6.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> <20061022130322.GS75501@over-yonder.net> <20061022092845.233deb43.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> <20061022133336.GT75501@over-yonder.net> 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 15:40:51 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 1GbdZJ-0006mS-F0 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 22 Oct 2006 15:40:49 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751805AbWJVNko (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:40:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751807AbWJVNko (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:40:44 -0400 Received: from bayc1-pasmtp11.bayc1.hotmail.com ([65.54.191.171]:21151 "EHLO BAYC1-PASMTP11.CEZ.ICE") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751805AbWJVNko (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:40:44 -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-PASMTP11.CEZ.ICE over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 22 Oct 2006 06:49:34 -0700 Received: from guru.attic.local ([10.10.10.28]) by linux1.attic.local with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gbcd7-0000zU-S5; Sun, 22 Oct 2006 08:40:41 -0400 To: "Matthew D. Fuller" Message-Id: <20061022094041.77c06cc7.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> In-Reply-To: <20061022133336.GT75501@over-yonder.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.9 (GTK+ 2.10.4; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Oct 2006 13:49:34.0812 (UTC) FILETIME=[E87551C0:01C6F5E0] Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 08:33:36 -0500 "Matthew D. Fuller" wrote: > Because they're 'local' to a given "branch"; see my message to cworth > a little while ago for expansion of the rather particular meaning of > the word used here. If somebody takes a clone of my _branch_, it's > the same "branch", so the numbers will be the same (and that's > desired). The fact is that once you start distributing them to other repositories you CAN NOT GUARANTEE their stability. Those number may already be used by _HIS_ branch and when he tries to get _YOUR_ branch.. there is a conflict. AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO FIX THAT. It's a fundamental flaw with distributing revnos. The reason you likely haven't seen a problem so far is that the bzr world seems to favor the use of a central server that has the effect of more or less synchronizing branch numbers to most of the nodes in the system. However, that's only one model. So while you may not have seen a problem yourself, there are _inherent_ limitations of the system you've embraced. But it seems like nobody on the bzr team cares or wants to hear about it, so let's just move on. Cheers, Sean From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sean Subject: Re: VCS comparison table Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:40:41 -0400 Message-ID: <20061022094041.77c06cc7.seanlkml__4078.99909555471$1161524523$gmane$org@sympatico.ca> References: <1161472030.9241.174.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061021192539.4a00cc3e.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> <1161478005.9241.210.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061021212645.2f9ba751.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> <1161487417.9241.220.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061021233014.d4525a1d.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> <20061022100028.GQ75501@over-yonder.net> <20061022074422.50dcbee6.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> <20061022130322.GS75501@over-yonder.net> <20061022092845.233deb43.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> <20061022133336.GT75501@over-yonder.net> 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 Sun Oct 22 15:42:02 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 1GbdaP-0006vI-5I for gcvbg-bazaar-ng@m.gmane.org; Sun, 22 Oct 2006 15:41:57 +0200 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=esperanza.ubuntu.com) by esperanza.ubuntu.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GbdZu-0007cN-AM; Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:41:26 +0100 Received: from bayc1-pasmtp11.bayc1.hotmail.com ([65.54.191.171] helo=BAYC1-PASMTP11.CEZ.ICE) by esperanza.ubuntu.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GbdZE-0007Yl-Pe for bazaar-ng@lists.canonical.com; Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:40:47 +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-PASMTP11.CEZ.ICE over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 22 Oct 2006 06:49:34 -0700 Received: from guru.attic.local ([10.10.10.28]) by linux1.attic.local with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gbcd7-0000zU-S5; Sun, 22 Oct 2006 08:40:41 -0400 To: "Matthew D. Fuller" Message-Id: <20061022094041.77c06cc7.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> In-Reply-To: <20061022133336.GT75501@over-yonder.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.9 (GTK+ 2.10.4; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Oct 2006 13:49:34.0812 (UTC) FILETIME=[E87551C0:01C6F5E0] 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 Sun, 22 Oct 2006 08:33:36 -0500 "Matthew D. Fuller" wrote: > Because they're 'local' to a given "branch"; see my message to cworth > a little while ago for expansion of the rather particular meaning of > the word used here. If somebody takes a clone of my _branch_, it's > the same "branch", so the numbers will be the same (and that's > desired). The fact is that once you start distributing them to other repositories you CAN NOT GUARANTEE their stability. Those number may already be used by _HIS_ branch and when he tries to get _YOUR_ branch.. there is a conflict. AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO FIX THAT. It's a fundamental flaw with distributing revnos. The reason you likely haven't seen a problem so far is that the bzr world seems to favor the use of a central server that has the effect of more or less synchronizing branch numbers to most of the nodes in the system. However, that's only one model. So while you may not have seen a problem yourself, there are _inherent_ limitations of the system you've embraced. But it seems like nobody on the bzr team cares or wants to hear about it, so let's just move on. Cheers, Sean