Re: [tlug] Great Git resources -- thanks!

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

Nguyen Vu Hung writes:

 > > What I disliked about CVS was how each file had a different
 > > version.  Perhaps that was meant to give flexibility, but it
 > > was awfully confusing.  Also didn't like the version numbers
 > > with decimals.  So, SVN fixed my two biggest gripes.

 > Sounds like the color of a bikeshed.

Not really, IMHO.  The per-file versioning (I doubt you meant this,
though), makes it hard to revert to a specific version-that-worked-
for-you unless (a) it was tagged or (b) you have an exact date for
when you last updated that workspace.

The decimal versions are not as big a problem, but they are quite
finicky to parse in scripts.

Aside to Raymond: git does not have revision numbers at all.  Instead,
you count backward from a named revision (usually a tag or branch
head).  Mercurial has Subversion-like numerical revision numbers (but
without the "r" prefix).  Bazaar has revision numbers, but like CVS
and RCS uses a dotted syntax to indicate branch structure.  In both
Mercurial and Bazaar branch numbers are somewhat unstable (different
workspaces may report different numbers for the identical revision
content), but for small teams who sync often, this may not be a
problem.