Re: VCS comparison table
- From
- Robert Collins <robertc@robertcollins.net>
- Date
- Oct 18, 2006, 05:26 UTC
- Message-ID
- <1161149200.3423.34.camel@localhost.localdomain>
- In-Reply-To
- <20061017233305.GG20017@pasky.or.cz>
On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 01:33 +0200, Petr Baudis wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> > BTW, I think it's fine to build a system optimized for small-scale > projects (if that's the intent), simplifying some things in favour of > mostly straight histories instead of more complicated merge situations > (although I tend to agree with Linus that if you don't behave in the > way the users are used to in 100% cases, the more frequently you > behave so the worse it comes back to bite in the rare cases you do). > Just as RCS is fine when maintaining individual files for personal > usage (I still actually occassionaly use it for few files).
revnos visibly change as your work is merged into the mainline - we've been doing this for years without trouble: ones own commits to a branch get '3', '4', '5' etc as revnos, and when they are merged to the mainline they used to stop having revnos at all, but now they will be given this dotted decimal revno. If you pull from the mainline after the merge, you see the new numbers, and when you look at mainline you can see the difference. So while I agree that the surprise the user gets is inversely related to the frequency with which they see the behaviour, I think our users see it a lot, so are not surprised much.
FWIW, we're not optimising for mostly straight histories as I understand such things : our own history has 3 commits on branches to every one on the mainline.
-Rob
-- GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.