Re: git and bzr
- From
Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com>
- Date
- Nov 28, 2006, 21:40 UTC
- Message-ID
- <46a038f90611281340u521fb5fct745ebe1ded9a630e@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <456C9DFF.1040407@onlinehome.de>
On 11/29/06, Nicholas Allen <nick.allen@onlinehome.de> wrote:
Show 6 quoted lines
> Having not used git I can't really say whether git is better than bzr or > not in this regard. I know in the kind of development I do the case > where a file with the same name has been added independantly in 2 > different branches is a pretty rare one. Usually, when it has happened > the files should have been 2 separate files with different names anyway > - so bzr would have no problem with this.
Not so rare in a true DSCM scenario where people submit patches via email or a bug tracker. Say two developers apply the same patch to their trees, and one of them tweaks it a bit. While I don't personally do kernel development, I understand that's reasonably common in the linux dev team.
It also happens quite a bit if you cherry pick across branches patches that create files.
In such cases, I find GIT does the right thing 99% of the time, including spotting situations where the file got added at different patchlevels in different branches.
cheers,