Re: VCS comparison table
- From
- J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org>
- Date
- Oct 17, 2006, 18:52 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20061017185225.GE2867@fieldses.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <7v64ejqx3a.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 11:23:53PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 15 quoted lines
> Aaron Bentley <aaron.bentley@utoronto.ca> writes: > > > Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > >>> You'll note we referred to that bevhavior on the page. We don't think > >>> what Git does is the same as supporting renames. AIUI, some Git users > >>> feel the same way. > >> > >> Oh, we start another flamewar again? > > > > I'd hope not. It sounds as though you feel that supporting renames in > > the data representation is *wrong*, and therefore it should be an insult > > to you if we said that Git fully supported renames. > > Not recording and not supporting are quite different things.
Yes. There's a risk of confusing a feature with an implementation detail. From http://bazaar-vcs.org/RcsComparisons:
"If a user can rename a file in the RCS without loosing the RCS history for a file, then renames are considered supported. If the operation resultes in a delete/add (aka "DA pair"), then renames are not considered supported. If the operation results in a copy/delete pair, renames are considered "somewhat" supported. The problem with copy support is that it is hard to define sane merge semantics for copies."
The first sentence sounds like a description of a user-visible feature. The rest of it sounds like implementation.
And git probably has some deficiencies here, but it'd be more useful to identify them in terms of things a user can't do.
--b.