On Sat, 2011-01-29 at 09:49 -0500, foobar wrote: [ . . . ] > The conceptual difference described above seems to me more of an > insignificant minor implementation detail than anything else.
Not at all. But I am really not going to argue the point any further. D has chosen Git, which is fine. > A git repository can contain one or more branches and you obviously can have > more than one repository so this boils down to your personal workflow > preferences. > In other words you can have multiple repositories for the same project and > just use them as branches. Git also provides sub-module support such that one > repository contains other repositories. > Also, while "git clone" indeed copies all the upstream branches, it's also > simple to track just a specific branch (or any subset) of the upstream > branches. It's just a matter of doing a git init with the relevant options > instead of relying on the default git clone behavior. Yes, but this (except tracking branches) applies to Mercurial as well. And mostly to Bazaar. However note the above. Tracking branches are probably the single most useful thing in Git compared to Mercurial and Bazaar. -- 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
