Dear diary, on Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 09:44:37PM CEST, I got a letter where Aaron Bentley <aaron.bentley@xxxxxxxxxxx> said that... > Andreas Ericsson wrote: > >> In our terminology, if it can diverge from the original, it's a branch, > >> not a checkout. > >> > > > > This clears things up immensely. bazaar checkout != git checkout. > > I still fail to see how a local copy you can't commit to is useful > > My bzr is run from a local copy I can't commit to. To get the latest > changes from http://bazaar-vcs.org, I can run "bzr update ~/bzr/dev". > To merge the latest changes into my branch, I can run > "bzr merge ~/bzr/dev". It's also convenient for applying other peoples' > patches to. The question is, why is it useful to enforce the "no commit" rule? Git can work exactly the same, it just doesn't _enforce_ the rule. And is the capability of enforcing such a rule important enough to warrant its own column in the comparison table? -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ #!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj $/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1 lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/) - 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