Hi all, I am trying to "free" my mind and see why storing changes (as git and Mercurial do) instead of storing revisions (as svn does) is better from developer point of view. Can you provide me some real programmers life examples showing the difference please?
Thanks for that information, Unfortunatelly I am not still convinced.
The biggest benefit is that when the system stores changes, and then you branch (implicitly or explicitly) and later merge, it knows which changesets to merge in. The next time you branch and merge, the system already knows that those changesets have been merged in (as well as how they were merged) and won't try to do it again. This avoids a lot of the merge conflicts that tend to occur in centralized systems like Subversion.
Any working example of this happening?
@cdeszaq: You are talking about superiority of the merge using changes storage because of better granurality. Again can you provide me an example where the same code is merged using say SVN and Mercurial and SVN has problems which are not present when it is done with Mercurial please?
Best regards, Adam