bazaar

As far as I know all distributed revision control systems require you to clone the whole repository. For this reason is it not wise to put huge amounts of content into one single repository (thanks for this answer ). I know that this a not a bug but a feature, but I wonder whether this is a requirement for all distributed revision control systems. In distributed rcs the history of a file (or a chunk of content) is a directed acyclic graph, so why can't you just clone this single DAG instead of the set of all graphs in the repository? Maybe I miss something but the following use-cases are hard

The way all version control systems I'm familiar with work is that each commit is attributed to a single developer. The rise of Agile Engineering, and specifically pair programming, has lead to a situation where two developers have made a significant contribution to the same task, a bug fix for example. The issue of attribution won't be too much of a big deal in a work environment since the project manager will be aware of the work the pairs are doing, but what about if two open source contributors decide to pair up and push out some code to a particular project that has no idea they're

If I delete a file in Subversion, how can I look at it's history and contents? If I try to do svn cat or svn log on a nonexistent file, it complains that the file doesn't exist. Also, if I wanted to resurrect the file, should I just svn add it back? (I asked specifically about Subversion, but I'd also like to hear about how Bazaar, Mercurial, and Git handle this case, too.) To get the log of a deleted file, use svn log -r lastrevisionthefileexisted If you want to resurrect the file and keep its version history, use svn copy url/of/file@lastrevisionthefileexisted -r lastrevisionthefileexisted

What do folks here see as the relative strengths and weaknesses of Git, Mercurial, and Bazaar? In considering each of them with one another and against version control systems like SVN and Perforce, what issues should be considered? In planning a migration from SVN to one of these distributed version control systems, what factors would you consider? Git is very fast, scales very well, and is very transparent about its concepts. The down side of this is that it has a relatively steep learning curve. A Win32 port is available, but not quite a first-class citizen. Git exposes hashes as version

The Big Three of distributed version control (Git, Bazaar, and Mercurial) each treat branching fairly differently. In Bazaar, for example, branches are separate repos (actually, divergent copies of the parent repo); on your file system, different branches live in different directories. In Git, on the other hand, you can have multiple branches existing in the same repo (and therefore in the same directory on your file system). Mercurial supports both behaviors , the latter with named branches . What are the pros and cons associated with these different branching models? In my mind, Bazaar's