From: Horst H. von Brand Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 02:02:32 GMT Subject: Re: VCS comparison table Message-ID: <200610270202.k9R22Wxf004208@laptop13.inf.utfsm.cl> In-Reply-To: Jakub Narebski wrote: [...] > 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... [...] > 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.