Re: New sync'd branch

[Óscar Fuentes]

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

>>> Yes, it is reasonably easy to blow up some operation terribly if you
>>> don't know what you are doing.  Because git has lots of power.  But
>>> you always can tell it: "Ok, this was a complete messup.  Give me
>>> back what I had 20 minutes ago".
>>
>> I'll really apreciate a tool that does not make me waste those 20
>> minutes.
>
> It saves you hours elsewhere.

Compared against the other DVCS's? Not on my experience. git's speed
advantage is not *that* large.

>>> It is very hard to actually do something which can't be undone.  You
>>> have to really try.
>>
>> And this is different from other VCSs how?
>
> No impact on a central repository even when you tried some complex merge
> and got it wrong.  Nobody gets to see your damaged foot.  You just
> messed up your personal sandbox temporarily.

I insist: and this is different from other VCS how?

Does git block you from sending your changes upstream when you messed up
your personal repo?

If you screw up your personal branch, bzr notices it and maliciously
sends the changes upstream without you asking for it?

>> The typical Emacs developer is not like Torvads.  Emacs has a
>> development style that is very far from Linux's.  Every example about
>> how well git works specifically for Torvalds is moot.
>
> That sounds like "nobody will ever need a car, because people ride
> horses quite differently than they would ride a car".

Often, a car is the worst option as a vehicle.

>> git's mergin strategies are possibly superior to bzr, but do we (Emacs
>> and most other Free projects) really need them? I think not.
>
> Do we really need cars?  I think not.
>
> I've been the designated merger for diverging feature branches at the
> last company I worked with.  Because I was used to working with git.
> The VCS at the company was Subversion.  Subversion is quite better with
> regard to merging than CVS ever was.  Still I was able to do this stuff
> quite more thoroughly and faster with git.  And with "faster" I mean the
> investment of human time, not computing time.

I was talking about bzr vs git for merging. hg vs git fits too. Now you
talk about svn, which merging support is basic, to say it softly. If you
keep changing your counterexample for making git look infinitely better
at every point, this discussion has no value.

>>> Moving Emacs towards Bazaar was a real stress test for
>>> Bazaar, and still is.
>>
>> This will be fixed over time.
>
> That's the sort of sentence in software development environments that
> sets off all my alarms.

There is a clear concern and involvement among bzr developers about
improving performance and almost everything else. I can't see much
concern about UI and multi-platform support when I read git's mailing
list, though.

[snip]

-- 
Óscar Fuentes
Desarrollo de Software