Re: [tlug] Open-source repository question

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

John Fremlin writes:

 > I would say that the architecture of git is more advanced. Three 
 > examples where it is more advanced: compressed database format,

Anybody can compress, even bazaar has caught on to this. :-)

 > the ability to track function moves across files (not sure if darcs
 > has this?),

No.  But that would not be too hard to add.  OTOH, Darcs does track
file add, move, and delete accurately, while in git those are
heuristic, and unpleasant enough that many people (at least in the
Java community) actively avoid that kind of refactoring in git.

 > very lightweight branches and stashing.

I like these features a lot, but many people find the branch = repo =
working copy model far more intuitive.

 > Check out git rebase --interactive

git-filter-branch is even cooler, but much harder to wrap your head
around.

I also think its really cool the way you can drop a commit on the
floor, and go uh-oh, and pick it back up again (reflogs).

However, these features are way beyond anything I can imagine Jim
needing for this project.

 > I use both darcs and git. I haven't had any problems with either, but my 
 > impression is that git has a better theory of patches than darcs,

git doesn't have a theory of patches at all ....