Re: Alternative DVCS to git: hg?

[Andrew Cagney <andrew.cagney%gmail.com@localhost>]

> > The "work around" is to somehow "encourage" all the developers to go
> > through something like:
> >
> > - test
> > - push
> > - pull
> > oh, "expletive",
> > - hack
> > - push
> > - pull
> > oh, "EXPLETIVE"
> > ....
> >
> > sure, like that will work ...
>
> More normal would be:
>
> hack
> pull
> push

Just to clarify, this lack of ACID (why does that sound so wrong) is:
- a brilliant feature
- a crock inherited from CVS and can be worked around by adopting
various "conventions"
However, before responding, can I encourage you take the argument
you've been using when rebutting SVN's "branch" design and try
applying them to your own viewpoint here.

> and it even works with the whole of NetBSD, so obviously it do work.
>
> >>> (That 'svn log' won't even show my own commit afterwards
> >>> (or yours before) is another one of svn's many idiosyncrasies.)
> >>
> >> I'm not following again. If I make a commit, I would assume it shows up
> >> afterwards if I check the log for the file. Are you saying it won't?
> >
> > It shows up.
> >
> > But (from memory here), SVN wonders off and talks to the server and
> > discovers there's a bonus commit that's been magically inserted before
> > your change.
>
> Sure, there might be a whole bunch of commits that was magically
> inserted before yours, depending on what you define as the other end of
> that timespan. But none of those changes will have touched any of the
> files you changed. So the log of the files you changed will not have any
> changes.

So again, which commit broke the branch?  With subversion, I can't
answer that question.