Source control for all dmd source (Git propaganda =)

["Jérôme M. Berger"]

Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> "Jérôme M. Berger", el  3 de junio a las 22:24 me escribiste:
>> Commit
>> ======
>>
>> Git has three ways to commit files to the repository:
>>
>> - Commit everything with "git commit -a";
>> - Commit only some files with "git commit file1 file2...";
>> - The staging area. This allows you to specify which files (or which changes) you want to commit using "git add" before doing the actual commit with "git 
>> commit". This is nice for some complicated situations, but I feel that it is not that common.
> 
> The truth is Git supports just one way to commit stuff and it's always
> through the staging area. git commit -a and git commit f1 f2 ... are just
> shortcuts for git add [every "dirty" file] && git commit and git add f1 f2
> ... && git commit respectively.

	That's an implementation detail. From the user's point of view, 
they introduce different workflow (which is good: more flexibility 
is better so long as it doesn't add undue complexity, which this 
doesn't).

>> - Mercurial and Git both have global options which apply to all commands
>> and specific options that only apply to the current command. With
>> Mercurial, the options may be put in any order, and in particular, you
>> can do "hg cmd <options>". With Git the global options must be put
>> before the command and the specific options must be put after: "git
>> <global options> cmd <specific options>";
> 
> I never noticed that. I think because I think I never used git "global"
> options. What are you using?
> 
	That was to deactivate the pager. I had first typed "git log" which 
showed the pager, then I simply typed the "up" key and added 
"--no-pager" to the command line, which didn't work and I had to 
change the command line a third time to get what I wanted (see what 
I said above about more flexibility being good)

>> - Mercurial command names are much more intuitive (especially coming
>> from cvs/svn). For example, in order to return a modified file to its
>> repository state: "cvs revert", "svn revert", "hg revert", "git
>> checkout". Even in absolute terms, "checkout" is not the first word that
>> comes to mind, I would have understood "revert" (obviously), "restore",
>> "backout" or an extra option to "update" (which Git doesn't have
>> anyway).
> 
> I think the Git names are right. It's true that it is not intuitive when
> coming from SVN/CVS, but what you are doing with that command is exactly
> that. You are checking out the file again (overwriting the current file).
> When you understand Git, that name makes perfect sense =)
> 
	I'd say "when you understand Git" is the issue. Once you know them, 
I don't think there's that much difference between Git, Mercurial 
and Bazaar. The difference is, you don't really need to *know* 
Mercurial or Bazaar to use them, which makes them a lot easier to learn.

> About update, git doesn't have update because you have more flexibility on
> how to "update" the repo.

	"hg update" doesn't update the repo, it updates the working copy. 
AIUI, git does it with the "merge" command. In absolute terms, I 
have no problem with this: the Git name makes as much sense as the 
Mercurial term. However, more than 20 years of SCMs (starting with 
RCS) have used "update" for that particular command. Using a 
different name simply makes it harder to learn Git if you have 
experience of another SCM.

>> Mercurial is also slightly better in terms of disk space used, although
>> this does not mean much given the capacity of today's HDDs.
> 
> Git have a packing mechanism that is ran when some heuristics detects too
> much space is wasted. You can try: git gc
> 
	Didn't help, but as I said this is not really an issue with modern 
disk sizes.

>> Git is supposed to have coloured output, but it wasn't enabled by
>> default and I didn't try to find how to do it. Mercurial has coloured
>> output on Unix, but not on Windows (I have written a patch to allow it
>> to work on Windows but I haven't sent it upstream yet).
> 
> Mercurial doesn't have coloured output in Unix (at least Debian package
> 1.2.1). How can I turn it on?

	Enable the "color" extension (it's one of the standard extensions, 
so you only need to add "hgext.color=" to the "[extensions]" section 
of your hgrc, no need to install anything).

		Jerome
-- 
mailto:jeberger at free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeberger at jabber.fr

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20090604/473e374a/attachment.pgp>