On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 11:50:36AM -0700, Stewart Stremler wrote: > begin quoting Lan Barnes as of Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 10:54:55AM -0700: > > An interesting story to follow. It's a mixture of religious passion, > > power, rage, jelousy ... just like opera. > > > > http://news.com.com/Torvalds+unveils+new+Linux+control+system/2100-7344_3-5678651.html?tag=nefd.top > > > > Heh. > > Interesting. Easy file renaming isn't there in Git. (I don't often > have this urge. Am I alone in this regard?) >
These can be complex tools, and the last design idea isn't in yet by any means (kinda like make facilities). Features that are show stoppers for one group and non-issues for another. We (and many professional development shops) do a lot of refactoring. Otherwise, code becomes brittle and unmaintainable. Renaming and directory tracking are very important to us. I doubt if Linus renames files much if at all. When he does, I doubt if he needs to retain history for three-letter federal regulatory bodies. Linus needs a highly flexible merge and roll-back tool. Period. That's just a small part of SCM to me. > I do find myself rather skeptical: > > Among the differences: Git can't rename a file; users must instead > delete one and recreate it elsewhere with the new name, McVoy said. > And it doesn't handle space efficiently; a tiny one-character change > to a 1MB file in Git will result in a 2MB file, whereas BitKeeper's > file will grow only by one byte. > > A _one_ byte change results in a _one_ byte increase? Where does the > metadata go? > > Or is this marketing-speak? > This is scary -- from the article I couldn't tell if "git" was a project or a home-roll by Linus. > What do you think of BitKeeper versus Perforce? I don't know bitkeeper. > > -Stewart > -- > [email protected] > http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list -- Lan Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Guy, SCM Specialist 858-354-0616 -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
