Dear diary, on Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 09:44:37PM CEST, I got a letter
where Aaron Bentley <aaron.bentley@utoronto.ca> said that...
quoted text
> Andreas Ericsson wrote:
> >> In our terminology, if it can diverge from the original, it's a branch,
> >> not a checkout.
> >>
> > 
> > This clears things up immensely. bazaar checkout != git checkout.
> > I still fail to see how a local copy you can't commit to is useful
> 
> My bzr is run from a local copy I can't commit to.  To get the latest
> changes from http://bazaar-vcs.org, I can run "bzr update ~/bzr/dev".
> To merge the latest changes into my branch, I can run
> "bzr merge ~/bzr/dev".  It's also convenient for applying other peoples'
> patches to.

The question is, why is it useful to enforce the "no commit" rule? Git
can work exactly the same, it just doesn't _enforce_ the rule. And is
the capability of enforcing such a rule important enough to warrant its
own column in the comparison table?

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
#!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html