Re^3: Thoughts on Git, Mercurial, Github, and Bitbucket.

I was under the impression that people mean something more than just "offline commits" when they talk about how awesome a distributed VCS is.

Comparing to cvs is perhaps not quite right. Maybe it's better to compare with subversion (which is "cvs with better branching"), where branching and merging is easy. Sure, svn merges still have their problems, but they are minor.

Comment on Re^3: Thoughts on Git, Mercurial, Github, and Bitbucket.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Thoughts on Git, Mercurial, Github, and Bitbucket. by moritz (Cardinal) on Mar 27, 2012 at 10:14 UTC
I was under the impression that people mean something more than just "offline commits" when they talk about how awesome a distributed VCS is. It's not just "offline commits". It's the ability to do everything offline (committing, branching, merging, tagging, rewriting history, inspecting history), and then have a sane way to synchronize that to some other repository ("online"). Perl 6 - second systems done right	[reply]
Re^4: Thoughts on Git, Mercurial, Github, and Bitbucket. by JavaFan (Canon) on Mar 27, 2012 at 10:42 UTC
I was under the impression that people mean something more than just "offline commits" when they talk about how awesome a distributed VCS is. Oh, sure. I was just too lazy to list the many dozens of git commands you can do "offline". Basically, anything that does not specifically exchanges data with a remote can be done offline. And I can communicate with multiple remotes -- git itself does not define a hierarchy, all repos are equal. Maybe it's better to compare with subversion I've no experience with subversion, so I've little to add. I think one of the major differences between git and subversion is that the latter uses a centralized model, while the former uses a distributed model. But AFAIK, subversion can do most of its commands "offline" as well.	[reply]