Re: Merge with git-pasky II.

From: Petr Baudis <pasky@ucw.cz>
Date: Apr 28, 2005, 00:42 UTC
Message-ID: <20050428004254.GX22956@pasky.ji.cz>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0504261522340.18901@ppc970.osdl.org>

Dear diary, on Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:25:58AM CEST, I got a letter where Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> told me that...

Show 9 quoted lines

> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Bram Cohen wrote:
> > 
> > So you think that a system which supports snapshots and history but has no
> > merging functionality whatsoever is the right thing?
> 
> You haven't looked at git, have you?
> 
> Git already merges better than _any_ open-source SCM out there. It just 
> does it so effortlessly that you didn't even realize it does that.

Did you (or any other kernel developer reading this) actually try the Codeville merge? (I admit I didn't get time to do anything real with it yet.) SCM people keep praising it (as basically the best (at least open-source) merge out there), so it would be interesting to compare that with the actual real-world experience with it on the kernel.

Show 7 quoted lines

> Today I've done four (count them) fully automated merges on the kernel
> tree: serial, networking, usb and arm.
> 
> And they took a fraction of a second (plus the download of the new
> objects, which is the real cost).
> 
> This is something that SVN _still_ cannot do, for example.

I think SVN is just irrelevant here - it is a completely different league. The contenders here are probably Codeville, Monotone and perhaps GNU Arch offsprings.

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. -- Steve Taylor