Robert Kern wrote: > Bill Baxter wrote: > >> http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/MergeProgram >> >> This is a bit puzzling. I understand better merging isn't the only >> reason to choose DVCS, but the above page basically says that >> Mercurial just uses whatever external merge program it can find. So >> the file-level merging sounds like it must really be no different from >> other VCSs. >> >> So it is really just proper merging of directory renames and the like >> that make it superior? >> > > No. If you'll pardon my repeating myself: > > """ > DVCSes need to keep track of more information in order to be > distributed. That information is extremely useful for managing merges > properly. > Centralized systems could track this information, but they don't *need* to in > order to be functional, so they mostly haven't, yet. > > For each revision, the DVCS knows what revisions it derives from. SVN does not > keep this information. SVN primarily just knows the text diffs from revision > to > revision. In particular, if I have a long-lived branch, I am going to merge in > changes from the trunk while I'm working on it. When I go to merge the branch > back into the trunk, I need to know which trunk-revisions I've already merged > into the branch. SVN does not track this information. Tools like svnmerge.py > track some of this information at the expense of some added clumsiness. > """ > > Does good merging only depends on the above ? Martin Pool, one of the bzr programmer, wrote this article two years ago:
http://sourcefrog.net/weblog/software/vc/derivatives.html which I found both enlightening and easy to follow. cheers, David _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
