On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 18:04 +0000, Andrew Haley wrote: > It's not possible for a VCS to be "different" -- it can only be > different from some other VCS.
That's true. For a non-distributed VCS, the 'norm' is generally considered to be CVS. Subversion is "different from CVS", for a limited number of minor reasons which, although real, just don't ever seem to be worth the pain of the difference in my experience. > And from that POV, git is "pointlessly different" from other VCS. People were trying to make distributed version control systems workable for a long time before git came along, but without much success. For _distributed_ version control systems, many people consider git to be the 'norm', just as CVS was for non-distributed VCS, and all the others are "pointlessly different". I could never understand why anyone would use anything but CVS (if that works for them), or git. The VCS-du-jour craze just confuses me. But I don't hack on gcc very often, and when I do I'm perfectly capable of shadowing it into a normal version control system -- so my opinion doesn't really matter much. -- dwmw2
