Re: VCS comparison table

From: Horst H. von Brand <vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl>
Date: Oct 27, 2006, 02:02 UTC
Message-ID: <200610270202.k9R22Wxf004208@laptop13.inf.utfsm.cl>
In-Reply-To: <jnareb@gmail.com>

Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

Show 5 quoted lines

> I'd rather split "Supports Renames" into engine part (does SCM
> remember/detect that rename took place _as_ rename, not remember/detect it
> as copiying+deletion; something other than rename) and user interface part:
> can user easily deal with renames (this includes merging and viewing file
> history).

I think that what to tool does in its guts is completely irrelevant, what is important is what the user sees. Sadly, it seems hard to describe exactly what is meant/wanted here.

[...]

> 7. Checkouts (as a noun). This probably read "Support Centralized and
> Disconnected Centralized Workflow" but that is perhaps too wordy. Git would
> have "No" for "Centralized"

Why? We could all agree that some repository is "central" and all push/pull there. Or send patches by mail (or apply them via ssh). Sure, it's not CVS, but...

[...]

Show 5 quoted lines

> 13. Plugins. I would put "Somewhat" here, or "Scriptable" in the "Somewhat"
> or "?" background color for Git. And add note that it is easy to script up
> porcelanish command, and to add another merge strategy. There also was
> example plugin infrastructure for Cogito, so I'd opt for "Someahwt"
> marking.

Mostly an implementation detail for "extensible"...

[...]

> 19. Ease of Use. Hmmm... I don't know for Git. I personally find it very
> easy to use, but I have not much experiences with other SCM. I wonder why
> Bazaar has "No" there...

Extremely subjective. Easy to learn doesn't cut it either.