Re: VCS comparison table
- From
Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se>
- Date
- Oct 25, 2006, 09:52 UTC
- Message-ID
- <453F33E4.2000708@op5.se>
- In-Reply-To
- <8764ed1b7z.wl%cworth@cworth.org>
Carl Worth wrote:
Show 21 quoted lines
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 19:42:47 -0400, Jeff Licquia wrote: >> I don't think so. Recently, I've been trying to track a particular >> patch in the kernel. It was done as a series of commits, and probably >> would have been its own branch in bzr, but when I was trying to group >> the commits together to analyze them as a group, the easiest way to do >> that was by the original committer's name. > > As far as "its own branch in bzr" would such a branch remain available > indefinitely even after being merged in to the main tree? > >> Now, there's probably a better way to hunt that stuff down, but in this >> case hunting the user down worked for me. (It may have made a >> difference that I was using gitweb instead of a local clone.) > > Vast, huge, gaping, cosmic difference. > > Almost none of the power of git is exposed by gitweb. It's really not > worth comparing. (Now a gitweb-alike that provided all the kinds of > very easy browsing and filtering of the history like gitk and git > might be nice to have.) >
There was one, but it got discontinued due to performance issues. Shame that, because it would have been nice to have to show "foreign" visitors how gitk/qgit works. It would especially show the way git thinks about branches and stuff like that.
-- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se