On Apr 21, 2005, at 11:50 AM, Stewart Stremler wrote:
Interesting. Easy file renaming isn't there in Git. (I don't often have this urge. Am I alone in this regard?)
No, but it's really nice not to have to go in and hand edit metadata just to reflect it on the new file.
To be fair, the cvs folks could have just written a tool to do this for you and lots of this complaining would just go away (I'm pretty sure that metaCVS does this).
Among the differences: Git can't rename a file; users must instead
delete one and recreate it elsewhere with the new name, McVoy said.
And it doesn't handle space efficiently; a tiny one-character change
to a 1MB file in Git will result in a 2MB file, whereas BitKeeper's
file will grow only by one byte.
He's probably talking about binary diffs. Personally, I don't care. Disk space is cheap. I would rather have complete file images regularly so that my file integrity is not dependent upon not losing a byte in one original source starting point.
Or is this marketing-speak?
Well, duh. It's Larry McVoy speaking.
What do you think of BitKeeper versus Perforce?
Won't use BitKeeper on philosophical grounds of not supporting jerks.
The FreeBSD guys use Perforce for some kernel hacking with nary a complaint. They then fold their Perforce stuff back into the CVS tree at the end.
-a
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
