On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:19:46 +0200 Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Sure. As I said before, the little add-on of checkouts is that you say > once "I don't want to do local commit here", and bzr reminds you this > each time you commit. Well, where it can make a difference is that it > does it in a transactional way, that is, you don't have that little > window between the time you pull and the time you push your next > commit. But this would really be bad luck ;-). Yeah, it would be bad luck, but Git wouldn't actually let the push succeed if someone had changed the upstream repo in that small window. It would complain that your push wasn't a fast forward and ask you to update before pushing. > Sure. And at least, if you want to prove that your decentralized SCM > is the best, you'd better look at features other than the ability to > commit on a local branch ;-). If you want a _real_ flamewar, better > talk about rename management or revision identity. > > The thing is that most people migrated from CVS/svn, so they found > their new SCM to be incredibly better the existing. But it's generally > not _so_ much better than the other modern alternatives ;-). (and > don't forget to thank Darcs and Monotone who brought most of the good > ideas you and I are using) Heh, true enough. And the fact is they're all "borrowing" the best ideas from one another. All of a sudden the others are all getting git-like bisect and gitk guis. And of course Linus has said that he got quite a bit of inspiration from Monotone originally. Beyond the distributed offline nature of using Git, the killer "feature" for me is its raw speed and flexibility[1]. It's really nice to be able to branch in under a second and try out a line of development etc. Maybe this is just as easy in Bazaar but it's not true of say Mercurial. Honestly, I just can't imagine any other SCM meeting my needs better than Git. So I have a hard time taking complaints about rename management or revision identity seriously. While they don't affect my usage, IMHO the two biggest failings of Git are its lack of a shallow clone and its reliance on shell and other scripting languages so there is no native Windows version. I'm sure both of these areas are handled better by Bazaar and/or some of the other new SCMs where they'd be a better choice than Git. Sean [1] As an aside, I don't understand why bazaar pushes the idea of "plugins". For instance someone mentioned that bazaar has a bisect "plugin". Well Git was able to add a bisect "command" without needing a plugin architecture.. so i'm at a loss as to why plugins are seen as an advantage. - 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