Re: cvs better than git?

[Andreas Krey <a.krey%gmx.de@localhost>]

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 17:26:05 +0000, Johnny Billquist wrote:
...
> What? I can't believe you are ignorant enough to not know that each file 
> in cvs have a version number for each commit on it.

ETOOLONGAGO; this is starting to slip my mind.
Yes, files have revision numbers. But they are nearly useless, and...

> Or refer to a revision at a certain point in time.

...referring to a specific time is the closest you can do.

There is no way to refer to the state of the entire tree at the
point a given file was committed in a given revision.

...
> See.. That is, in my book (and not only mine) a serious broken pattern. 
> You do not commit before reviewing.

To review, you need a full description of the changes: Diffs, added
files, removed files, renamed files. And the intended commit message.
The data structure that can already represent this is, well, a commit.

This goes doubly when you don't want to commit an entire feature
in a single commit - for the review you then need to further specify
which changes shall go into which commit.

Thus the easiest way to give to a review what you want to commit is
to actually commit it and let the reviewers inspect (and the CI test) that.

> But ok, if that is how you work, then I guess there is not much I can 
> learn from you in that area. Oh well.

You're a bit hung up on the word 'commit', and the finality of commits
in some VCSes, it seems.

- Andreas

-- 
"Totally trivial. Famous last words."
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@*.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800