> Monotone, the source control system whose internal design Git is based on
Huh? They both use content-addressing (identify everything by its hash) which leads to the nice property that history is cryptographically immutable, but at least Mercurial also does (and is also older than Git).
But other than that, they're fairly different.
The concept of what a branch is is fundamentally different. In Git, it's a pointer to a revision, and has a home (it's mutable scalar that a URI could point to). In Monotone, a branch is "all revisions - whether or not you know about them - that have a certificate that you trust that says they're in that branch".
(I describe that as Monotone being distributed as in Usenet, while Git is federated as in Email.)
Monotone treats a file as an object (so it can be explicitly renamed or deleted), where Git only has "this tree has a file at this location" and then can infer renames or deletes or creates (or copies or splits or whatever).
Plus of course there's the whole "monotone uses SQLite" thing.
Huh? They both use content-addressing (identify everything by its hash) which leads to the nice property that history is cryptographically immutable, but at least Mercurial also does (and is also older than Git).
But other than that, they're fairly different.
The concept of what a branch is is fundamentally different. In Git, it's a pointer to a revision, and has a home (it's mutable scalar that a URI could point to). In Monotone, a branch is "all revisions - whether or not you know about them - that have a certificate that you trust that says they're in that branch".
(I describe that as Monotone being distributed as in Usenet, while Git is federated as in Email.)
Monotone treats a file as an object (so it can be explicitly renamed or deleted), where Git only has "this tree has a file at this location" and then can infer renames or deletes or creates (or copies or splits or whatever).
Plus of course there's the whole "monotone uses SQLite" thing.