And Russell Adams writes: > When I was selecting a VC, I narrowed it down to Bazaar or Git. Being > a prior Arch user, Bazaar fixed most of my complaints while using the > same architecture.
The Arch architecture doesn't fit everyone. In particular, a colleague and I used tla to shoot changes back and forth rapidly. We ended up with a history with at least 40% merge detritus. git doesn't bother recording merge information when the merge is trivial (a fast-forward of one history to match another). That fit our working model and my mental model better. Generally, git tracks contents rather than changes. That's how my head works as well, so most git functions do what I expect and want. Any technical differences are insignificant in comparison. Git and Mercurial archives can exist on the far side of a "dumb" transport like http. They're not ideal necessarily, but they function well enough. Jason _______________________________________________ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
