Re: Bzr lightweight checkout, bzr shallow branches, and git
Hi Adeodato,
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Adeodato Simó <dato@net.com.org.es> wrote:
> * Ondrej Certik [Mon, 02 Mar 2009 11:07:25 -0500]:
>
>> >> I have never used stacked branches, but are you sure you can only
>> >> branch the repository data related to a subset of the working tree
>> >> only ? My understanding is that bzr stacked branches are useful to
>> >> avoid downloading the whole history, but that you still need to get
>> >> the whole project. I think it would be very difficult to support the
>> >> usual features of DVCS without it ?
>
>> > If you don't want the project history, then you can use lightweight
>> > checkouts, which are essentially equivalent to SVN checkouts (you get a
>> > local working copy, but no local branch or repository).
>
>> Ah, so you basically only get the local working copy, but *no* bzr
>> repository, right? Well, with git, you can get this over the web
>> interface, so we may write a simple (Python:) script to download this
>> for you from the commandline. Maybe someone did this already.
>
> No, that interpretation is not correct.
>
> I'm going to explain the three involved concepts, in hopes that it will
> be useful for this discussion, or for future instances of this discussion.
> I'll (concisely) explain Bazaar's lightweight checkouts, Bazaar's stacked
> branches, and what Git has to offer in this area.
Thanks a lot for taking time to write this, now it's clear to me that
git is inferior in this particular point to bazaar, I agree with you.
You made very good points, thanks for that.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> My rebuttal is that if git is technical superior to bazaar because bazaar
> has a mechanism to create repositories with only partial history, then
No, I think Adeodato addressed this in his follow up email:
"
> I'm not claiming that Git's design is overall inferior than Bazaar's. In
> fact, I quite much like it.
>
> I'm just saying that Bazaar can provide full-fledged branches that don't
> physically contain all history data, and Git cannot, and in my view that's
> a disadvantage and an inferiority *in that particular point*.
"
> bazaar is technically superior to git because git has rebasing as a
> first-class feature.
Just to make sure -- you meant it as a joke, right? Sometimes I am a
little unsure over emails. :)
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote:
> Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> (02/03/2009):
>> My rebuttal is that if git is technical superior to bazaar because
>> bazaar has a mechanism to create repositories with only partial
>> history, then bazaar is technically superior to git because git has
>> rebasing as a first-class feature.
>
> Oh my HEAD, it hurts.
I didn't get this reply at all, besides HEAD being the git's top
commit. I think my humor senses are sleeping today, sorry guys, I hope
to improve tomorrow. :)
Anyway, good discussion, please keep going, I find it very useful.
Ondrej
Reply to: