Re: GIT vs Other: Need argument

From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@imag.fr>
Date: Apr 19, 2007, 13:29 UTC
Message-ID: <vpqhcrcebmp.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704191033290.8822@racer.site>

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

> How is that not concurrent? If it really was not, there would be no need 
> to merge.

It can be concurrent, but on different files. Concurrency and merge at the filetree level, but never within a file. I've worked in a team where the "corporate" use of a VCS was following this model. Not locking a file before editing it was considered a mistake.

Show 11 quoted lines

>> So for such people, I really think raw Git is much more complicated than 
>> CVS/SVN.
>
> I imagine that somebody dedicated enough -- i.e. not me -- could set up 
> some standard aliases which do the CVS/SVN equivalent; we'd probably need 
> to support something like
>
> 	[alias]
> 		ci = commit -a && push origin
>
> which should not be all that hard.

It depends on how you implement that.

There have been a discussion crossposted here and on the bzr ML. The author of cogito added a similar feature to cogito.

But to emulate the centralized model, you need more than that, you have to

1) make sure you're up to date with upstream
2) commit
3) push

and to do it correctly, 1) must be checked during all the procedure, and doing it in a transactional way is not trivial.

bzr has a notion of "bound branches". That is, when you commit to a bound branch, you also commit to the master branch. And the UI for that is to use "bzr checkout master-branch". I agree the centralized model is inferior in general, but there are several cases where this is handy. One of them being to teach a newbie: "see, learn checkout, update, commit, add, mv, remove and you know how to use it". Another, for me, is to avoid forgetting to push ;-).

-- 
Matthieu