From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.176.0/21 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 From: "Martin Langhoff" Subject: Re: git and bzr Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:40:06 +1300 Message-ID: <46a038f90611281340u521fb5fct745ebe1ded9a630e@mail.gmail.com> References: <45357CC3.4040507@utoronto.ca> <456B7C6A.80104@webdrake.net> <845b6e870611280410j58bdcd99nc05d0f67489293e4@mail.gmail.com> <456C7592.6020700@ableton.com> <456C9DFF.1040407@onlinehome.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:40:38 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "Jakub Narebski" , bazaar-ng@lists.canonical.com, git@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=rov5qdV7vFq8lAPEevwAzphsakAMTTeVCUKHuE2QFRtWjCEWDiphhVeEf45uRMFONMR6FWLs3VwmDypGMlZ713hmQmE2I1NfNUt41/P5pcvb9x2phd97L+V4qEgRGR5hIE5PAya64OMf8ir9N51xDbkRuwuRXFaqG9Bq1GdyiLE= In-Reply-To: <456C9DFF.1040407@onlinehome.de> Content-Disposition: inline Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GpAgY-0004gm-K7 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 22:40:15 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756794AbWK1VkK (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:40:10 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756797AbWK1VkK (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:40:10 -0500 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.189]:8331 "EHLO nf-out-0910.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756794AbWK1VkI (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:40:08 -0500 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id o25so2698953nfa for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:40:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.48.217.20 with SMTP id p20mr5244972nfg.1164750006789; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:40:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.49.60.1 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:40:06 -0800 (PST) To: "Nicholas Allen" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org On 11/29/06, Nicholas Allen wrote: > Having not used git I can't really say whether git is better than bzr or > not in this regard. I know in the kind of development I do the case > where a file with the same name has been added independantly in 2 > different branches is a pretty rare one. Usually, when it has happened > the files should have been 2 separate files with different names anyway > - so bzr would have no problem with this. Not so rare in a true DSCM scenario where people submit patches via email or a bug tracker. Say two developers apply the same patch to their trees, and one of them tweaks it a bit. While I don't personally do kernel development, I understand that's reasonably common in the linux dev team. It also happens quite a bit if you cherry pick across branches patches that create files. In such cases, I find GIT does the right thing 99% of the time, including spotting situations where the file got added at different patchlevels in different branches. cheers,