Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial? easy merging in svn, how about git/hg?

Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial? easy merging in svn, how about git/hg?
From: Stephan Menzel (stephan.menzel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-29 08:01:50

Sorry, I have to filibuster myself here...

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Stephan Menzel
<stephan.menzel_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> You can also have multiple branches in one working copy. Git calls
> that concept "tracked branches". You can have as many branches in a
> (local) repository as you want and some of them, if not all, can be
> tracking branches, which means when they created, they point to a
> remote branch in the repo you've cloned from (aka 'origin') or indeed
> any other, and pull in changes from there.

The reason why I bring that up is because in all this discussion here,
there'a a lot of comparing handling of branches in SVN and git and
what is easier and whatnot. This is not really a sensible thing to do
as the very concept of 'branches', despite equal naming, is in fact
very different in git and svn. So different, that direct comparison
does not make sense in my opinion, as above example shows.

Cheers,
Stephan