| 1 |
Hello, konsolebox. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 11:18:49PM +0800, konsolebox wrote: |
| 4 |
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 10:28 PM, Alan Mackenzie <acm@×××.de> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Hello, everybody. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> Good day. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> > instead of conceptualising a "branch" (as you would do with Mercurial, |
| 10 |
> > Bazaar, Subversion, or even CVS), you need to think about "commits |
| 11 |
> > reachable from a certain head (excluding commits reachable from some |
| 12 |
> > other head)". |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> I actually see that as a more flexible approach. git is designed to be |
| 15 |
> distributed and that's what everyone loves about it. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
We're in violent agreement, it seems. git is very flexible, just like |
| 18 |
programming in assembler is. git is certainly a distributed system, |
| 19 |
just like Mercurial, Bazaar, etc., but seems to be the only one of its |
| 20 |
kind that imposes this degree of flexibility on its users. Hence the |
| 21 |
multi-hundred line man pages for each of git's 155 sub-commands. |
| 22 |
Mercurial has a mere 50 sub-commands (plus, to be fair, a few one's |
| 23 |
going to need which are classified as extensions), and a single, very |
| 24 |
readable, man page ~8000 lines long. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> For everything: |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/802573/difference-between-git-and-cvs |
| 29 |
> http://eclipsesource.com/blogs/2011/06/09/git-lessons-learned/ |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> Cheers, |
| 32 |
> konsolebox |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). |
Archives