Stephen Leake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm. In one sense, everything in bzr is a "merge", because every
> developer has their own branch. That's part of my confusion. I prefer
> a system where everyone shares the same branch, via some sync
> mechanism. Monotone has that; I believe git does also.
The underlying model is actually the same in all cases :
* The set of revisions is a DAG
* Each user usually have a subset of all the revisions existing in the
world for a given project, and push/pull revisions from a repository
to another.
* A user can commit locally a new revision which can be the successor
of any other revision.
So, for example, if I start a project with linear history
o --> commit 1 --> commit 2
and publish it, it's possible that two users commit two successors for
commit 2, like
o --> commit 1 --> commit 2 --> commit 3
`-> commit 3'
and conceptually, this involves branching, and later requires merging.
In Bzr, you'd call the succession of commits leading to 3' and the one
leading to 3 two different branches. Same goes for Git (but the local
name of branches can be the same). AAUI, monotone would call that a
single branch with multiple heads. But conceptually, the difference is
weak.
--
Matthieu
_______________________________________________
Dvc-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/dvc-dev
