|
From: | Jerome Fisher |
Subject: | Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: user-friendly hash formats, redux |
Date: | Tue, 07 Dec 2004 21:10:11 +0100 |
User-agent: | Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103) |
Nathaniel Smith wrote:
A BitKeeper repository is (more or less; I'm grossly oversimplifying) conceptually equivalent to a monotone database, except that you can only have one working space using it. A BitKeeper repository *does* have a unique ID (which users basically never need to know about), but I don't know whether this has any influence on its assignment of changeset revision numbers. I doubt it.On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 08:24:57PM +0100, Jerome Fisher wrote:I'm not a fan of unstable revision IDs, though nobody seems to complain about this in BitKeeper. BitKeeper uses unstable revision IDs and stable, global, human-unfriendly keys. The user interface is so focused on the former that users are often unaware of the latter (which can be a bad thing). Note that the BitKeeper's revision IDs do tend to stabilise over time, especially in the common case of having a central, authoritative repository that people regularly sync with.BitKeeper is kind of different, though, isn't it? Somewhat more like Arch, in that BK has "repositories" as first-class objects, and you can talk about them by name and stuff?
Neither have I, except briefly for evaluation purposes some years ago. I have been following its development quite closely, though.Real questions, actually, I've never seen BK in action :-)
Regards, Jerome
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |