From: Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:52:36 GMT
Subject: Re: VCS comparison table
Message-ID: <453F33E4.2000708@op5.se>
In-Reply-To: <8764ed1b7z.wl%cworth@cworth.org>

Carl Worth wrote:
> 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