change-sets-vs-snapshots


***
> in
> The perfect revision control system thread
>Colin Putney cputney at wiresong.ca 
>Sat Feb 16 21:00:08 UTC 2008  wrote:
>
>If you look at discussion of versioning system around
the net, you'll  
>run across bitter arguments about
change-sets-vs-snapshots. As far as  
>I can tell, the two are information-equivalent. I
think it boils down  
>to how you prefer to think about the problem.
>
***

This would be about arguing income statements vs.
balance sheets.

The info is complementary not the same.  Change-sets
get you from snapshot to snapshot. The difference
between two snapshots is a change but not a sequence
of change sets.  The use case that point this out is a
move or a swap

the change needed for a swap is:
temp := a .
a := b . 
b := temp .

See: 
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-February/101071.html
For an Andreas Raab take on this with the original MC.

My curiosity is, if you are thinking what you said
above, do you still have a blind spot for time and
sequence?

As a bug tracker I find it helps to follow the beast
every step of the way. The culprit sometimes covers
his tracks and it is best to catch him in the act.

Yours in curiosity and service, --Jerome Peace



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ