Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
What I'm wondering is... can monotone's approach represent some
situation that git cannot?
Hm. Good question. I guess it's a matter of taste, if you want the VCS
to provide shared branch names or if you are fine with relying on
everybody naming his local branches the same as you do.
Yes, it is absolutely about whether the tool maintains a shared branch
namespace. In the same way monotone maintains shared notions of file
identity, or integrates a (crude) public key distribution system: we
decided to fold the logic into the tool rather than keeping it external.
In the case of git, branches are "a name at a URL at a point in time".
The name depends both on URL continuity and the passage of time. That's
not necessarily *bad*, it's just different. It comes with different
costs and benefits. The cost is you have to pay attention to URLs and
time. The benefit is that you don't have to come up with your own
mechanism for managing a shared namespace, and you can do things like
delete branches by mutating the set of branches found at a URL.
-graydon
_______________________________________________
Monotone-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
