-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Aaron Bentley wrote: >> Bazaar's namespace is "simple" because all branches can be named by a >> URL, and all revisions can be named by a URL + a number. > > How should this cope with a distributed project? IOW how does it deal with > "this revision and that revision are exactly the same"? There are two answers here. One is that the URL + number is UI, not internals. A unique ID is used internally, so that can be compared. But to fully ensure that there are no differences, i.e. that no one has reused an ID, you can generate a revision testament. > If I understand you correctly, you are claiming that you are not really > identifying a revision, but a revision _at a certain place with a > place-dependent number_. This conflicts with my understanding of a > revision. No, I am claiming that a revision at a certain place with a place-dependent number is one name for a revision, but it may have other names. >> If that's true of Git, then it certainly has a simple namespace. Using >> eight-digit hex values doesn't sound simple to me, though. > > It depends on your usage. If you want to do anything interesting, like > assure that you have the correct version, or assure that two different > person's tags actually tag the same revision, there is no simpler > representation. I can use the 'bzr missing' command to check whether my branch is in sync with a remote branch. Or I can use the 'pull' command to update my branch to a given revno in a remote branch. >> That sounds right. So those branches are persistent, and can be worked >> on independently? > > Of course! Persistence (and reliability) are the number one goal of git. > Performance is the next one. You'd be surprised. When we last spoke to the Mercurial team, Mercurial didn't support multiple persistent branches in one repository. Pulling from a remote repository could join two branches into one. I'm told they're fixing that now. >> You'll note we referred to that bevhavior on the page. We don't think >> what Git does is the same as supporting renames. AIUI, some Git users >> feel the same way. > > Oh, we start another flamewar again? I'd hope not. It sounds as though you feel that supporting renames in the data representation is *wrong*, and therefore it should be an insult to you if we said that Git fully supported renames. Aaron -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFNGVq0F+nu1YWqI0RAsXiAJ9hjH2sQGG3E9oIYP2SxscXvVQsJACdHtkj +r37JPSjbQCuchPo08P3px8= =5MHE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html