On Sat, 2011-01-29 at 11:18 +0100, "Jérôme M. Berger" wrote: [ . . . ] > In Mercurial (and AFAIK Git), branches and repositories are > completely different concepts. A repository is a folder on your hard > drive. A branch is a history line inside a repository so it's not
Definitely, this is not at issue. The way Git and Mercurial store information about branches and tags within a repository is very different. This leads to a few observable differences in the way branches and commits behave, but in the main there is similarity not difference. Caveat Git's index of course. > that different from Bazaar. The only difference I see is that Bazaar > allows you to clone a single branch (i.e to create a repository that > will only contain that single branch) whereas a clone of a Mercurial > repository will always contain all the branches that the parent had > (don't know about Git). This is not quite the right view of Bazaar. In Bazaar, the branch is the only thing that exists: each branch is a standalone entity that may or may not have a working tree. Bazaar also has shared repositories which can act as containers of branches, allowing related branches to share common information thereby saving resources. This is a very, very different concept of repository compared to Mercurial or Git. In Bazaar you do not branch repositories, you branch branches -- which may (or may not) be stored in repositories. As you say with Git and Mercurial you clone repositories. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@russel.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
