Richard Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I have just spent some time looking at git alternatives for > Emacs. Unfortunately somewhere along the way I lost the wood for the > trees and just spent a day fighting clashing versions which is now > cleared. The Main reason was the inclusion of Git in the basic Emacs > 23.0 suite. Which leads me to the, naive no doubt, question of "Why > DVC"? The included Version Control supports a host of back ends as is > and so I have to ask why the need for DVC? I understand it does cover > some of the backends not supported in Emacs Version Control. Is it > possibly history and DVC was conceived prior to the rewrite of the built > in VC?
The short answer is that DVC is to plain Emacs VC for git (and mtn, bzr etc) as PCL-CVS is to plain Emacs VC for CVS. You can do lots of CVS operations with plain Emacs VC, but the PCL-CVS interface is more organized, and just better for almost all CVS operations. With systems that check in all files in the workspace in one atomic commit, it is even more important to use an interface that shows all files that will be committed, not just the ones in some directory. I have an intro to Emacs DVC for mtn at http://gds.gsfc.nasa.gov/dvc-intro.html We really need to rewrite the DVC manual. -- -- Stephe _______________________________________________ Dvc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/dvc-dev
