Re:Distributed Version Control is here to stay, baby
by timr on Thursday March 18, 2010 @12:38PM
(#1201730)
The first example is a red herring, and the second really doesn't have anything to do with the change vs. revision dichotomy.
If you want to split trunk into competing experiments (and eventually discard one) using a "traditional" RCS like Subversion, you can do that. Easily. Worrying about the linear history of rev numbers would be like worrying about the ordering of hash tags in git. Just ignore them -- you always can get the change history of the branch on which you're working.
The second example is a feature provided by distributed version-control, not the choice of "changes" over "revisions". It's maybe easier to implement distributed version control with the former paradigm, but it's not impossible in either case.
If you want to split trunk into competing experiments (and eventually discard one) using a "traditional" RCS like Subversion, you can do that. Easily. Worrying about the linear history of rev numbers would be like worrying about the ordering of hash tags in git. Just ignore them -- you always can get the change history of the branch on which you're working.
The second example is a feature provided by distributed version-control, not the choice of "changes" over "revisions". It's maybe easier to implement distributed version control with the former paradigm, but it's not impossible in either case.