My MacPorts describes GIT as "the stupid content tracker"... Has anybody used GIT - outside of Linux kernel development? Should we not focus our energy elsewhere; something more pragmatic, such as porting Boost to D? ;-) I was pretty impressed - as well - by GIT when testing it out, and even more so by testing 'darcs' out. But, one seems to always need a central repository anyways, which kind of contradicts - and perhaps even counteracts - the distributed nature of these systems. As David Abrahams points out, these distributed attempts often has a - officially or not - central node, which mirrors the quasi-shared development of those projects... /David On Jun 7, 2007, at 4:02 PM, Henrik Sundberg wrote:
2007/6/7, Phil Richards <news@derived-software.ltd.uk>:
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 10:21:10 -0400, David Abrahams wrote:
Yeah; I get the impression that GIT even deals correctly with fragments of code moving across files.
I believe that that impression is incorrect. Because GIT tracks file state only (no explicit rename or copy tracking), it use a similarity comparison between states to try and identify when a rename actually occurred so it can track the "history" of content. If a fragment is moved, the similarity check will not identify that fragment. The two files will end up being viewed as completely independent by all parts of GIT including the merge algorithms.
I got the same impression as David. This was highlighted as something special to GIT. /$ _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/ listinfo.cgi/boost