Mercurial > hgbook
diff en/ch00-preface.xml @ 683:c838b3975bc6
Add IDs to paragraphs.
author | Bryan O'Sullivan <bos@serpentine.com> |
---|---|
date | Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:18:52 -0700 |
parents | 28b5a5befb08 |
children | 34cb220eb717 |
line wrap: on
line diff
--- a/en/ch00-preface.xml Thu Mar 19 20:54:12 2009 -0700 +++ b/en/ch00-preface.xml Thu Mar 19 21:18:52 2009 -0700 @@ -6,13 +6,13 @@ <sect1> <title>Why revision control? Why Mercurial?</title> - <para>Revision control is the process of managing multiple + <para id="x_6d">Revision control is the process of managing multiple versions of a piece of information. In its simplest form, this is something that many people do by hand: every time you modify a file, save it under a new name that contains a number, each one higher than the number of the preceding version.</para> - <para>Manually managing multiple versions of even a single file is + <para id="x_6e">Manually managing multiple versions of even a single file is an error-prone task, though, so software tools to help automate this process have long been available. The earliest automated revision control tools were intended to help a single user to @@ -23,11 +23,11 @@ problem coping with thousands of people working together on projects that consist of hundreds of thousands of files.</para> - <para>The arrival of distributed revision control is relatively + <para id="x_6f">The arrival of distributed revision control is relatively recent, and so far this new field has grown due to people's willingness to explore ill-charted territory.</para> - <para>I am writing a book about distributed revision control + <para id="x_70">I am writing a book about distributed revision control because I believe that it is an important subject that deserves a field guide. I chose to write about Mercurial because it is the easiest tool to learn the terrain with, and yet it scales to @@ -37,41 +37,41 @@ <sect2> <title>Why use revision control?</title> - <para>There are a number of reasons why you or your team might + <para id="x_71">There are a number of reasons why you or your team might want to use an automated revision control tool for a project.</para> <itemizedlist> - <listitem><para>It will track the history and evolution of + <listitem><para id="x_72">It will track the history and evolution of your project, so you don't have to. For every change, you'll have a log of <emphasis>who</emphasis> made it; <emphasis>why</emphasis> they made it; <emphasis>when</emphasis> they made it; and <emphasis>what</emphasis> the change was.</para></listitem> - <listitem><para>When you're working with other people, + <listitem><para id="x_73">When you're working with other people, revision control software makes it easier for you to collaborate. For example, when people more or less simultaneously make potentially incompatible changes, the software will help you to identify and resolve those conflicts.</para></listitem> - <listitem><para>It can help you to recover from mistakes. If + <listitem><para id="x_74">It can help you to recover from mistakes. If you make a change that later turns out to be in error, you can revert to an earlier version of one or more files. In fact, a <emphasis>really</emphasis> good revision control tool will even help you to efficiently figure out exactly when a problem was introduced (see section <xref linkend="sec:undo:bisect"/> for details).</para></listitem> - <listitem><para>It will help you to work simultaneously on, + <listitem><para id="x_75">It will help you to work simultaneously on, and manage the drift between, multiple versions of your project.</para></listitem> </itemizedlist> - <para>Most of these reasons are equally valid---at least in + <para id="x_76">Most of these reasons are equally valid---at least in theory---whether you're working on a project by yourself, or with a hundred other people.</para> - <para>A key question about the practicality of revision control + <para id="x_77">A key question about the practicality of revision control at these two different scales (<quote>lone hacker</quote> and <quote>huge team</quote>) is how its <emphasis>benefits</emphasis> compare to its @@ -79,19 +79,19 @@ difficult to understand or use is going to impose a high cost.</para> - <para>A five-hundred-person project is likely to collapse under + <para id="x_78">A five-hundred-person project is likely to collapse under its own weight almost immediately without a revision control tool and process. In this case, the cost of using revision control might hardly seem worth considering, since <emphasis>without</emphasis> it, failure is almost guaranteed.</para> - <para>On the other hand, a one-person <quote>quick hack</quote> + <para id="x_79">On the other hand, a one-person <quote>quick hack</quote> might seem like a poor place to use a revision control tool, because surely the cost of using one must be close to the overall cost of the project. Right?</para> - <para>Mercurial uniquely supports <emphasis>both</emphasis> of + <para id="x_7a">Mercurial uniquely supports <emphasis>both</emphasis> of these scales of development. You can learn the basics in just a few minutes, and due to its low overhead, you can apply revision control to the smallest of projects with ease. Its @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ time, Mercurial's high performance and peer-to-peer nature let you scale painlessly to handle large projects.</para> - <para>No revision control tool can rescue a poorly run project, + <para id="x_7b">No revision control tool can rescue a poorly run project, but a good choice of tools can make a huge difference to the fluidity with which you can work on a project.</para> @@ -110,19 +110,19 @@ <sect2> <title>The many names of revision control</title> - <para>Revision control is a diverse field, so much so that it is + <para id="x_7c">Revision control is a diverse field, so much so that it is referred to by many names and acronyms. Here are a few of the more common variations you'll encounter:</para> <itemizedlist> - <listitem><para>Revision control (RCS)</para></listitem> - <listitem><para>Software configuration management (SCM), or + <listitem><para id="x_7d">Revision control (RCS)</para></listitem> + <listitem><para id="x_7e">Software configuration management (SCM), or configuration management</para></listitem> - <listitem><para>Source code management</para></listitem> - <listitem><para>Source code control, or source + <listitem><para id="x_7f">Source code management</para></listitem> + <listitem><para id="x_80">Source code control, or source control</para></listitem> - <listitem><para>Version control + <listitem><para id="x_81">Version control (VCS)</para></listitem></itemizedlist> - <para>Some people claim that these terms actually have different + <para id="x_82">Some people claim that these terms actually have different meanings, but in practice they overlap so much that there's no agreed or even useful way to tease them apart.</para> @@ -132,7 +132,7 @@ <sect1> <title>This book is a work in progress</title> - <para>I am releasing this book while I am still writing it, in the + <para id="x_83">I am releasing this book while I am still writing it, in the hope that it will prove useful to others. I am writing under an open license in the hope that you, my readers, will contribute feedback and perhaps content of your own.</para> @@ -141,21 +141,21 @@ <sect1> <title>About the examples in this book</title> - <para>This book takes an unusual approach to code samples. Every + <para id="x_84">This book takes an unusual approach to code samples. Every example is <quote>live</quote>---each one is actually the result of a shell script that executes the Mercurial commands you see. Every time an image of the book is built from its sources, all the example scripts are automatically run, and their current results compared against their expected results.</para> - <para>The advantage of this approach is that the examples are + <para id="x_85">The advantage of this approach is that the examples are always accurate; they describe <emphasis>exactly</emphasis> the behaviour of the version of Mercurial that's mentioned at the front of the book. If I update the version of Mercurial that I'm documenting, and the output of some command changes, the build fails.</para> - <para>There is a small disadvantage to this approach, which is + <para id="x_86">There is a small disadvantage to this approach, which is that the dates and times you'll see in examples tend to be <quote>squashed</quote> together in a way that they wouldn't be if the same commands were being typed by a human. Where a human @@ -163,13 +163,13 @@ resulting timestamps correspondingly spread out, my automated example scripts run many commands in one second.</para> - <para>As an instance of this, several consecutive commits in an + <para id="x_87">As an instance of this, several consecutive commits in an example can show up as having occurred during the same second. You can see this occur in the <literal role="hg-ext">bisect</literal> example in section <xref id="sec:undo:bisect"/>, for instance.</para> - <para>So when you're reading examples, don't place too much weight + <para id="x_88">So when you're reading examples, don't place too much weight on the dates or times you see in the output of commands. But <emphasis>do</emphasis> be confident that the behaviour you're seeing is consistent and reproducible.</para> @@ -179,18 +179,18 @@ <sect1> <title>Trends in the field</title> - <para>There has been an unmistakable trend in the development and + <para id="x_89">There has been an unmistakable trend in the development and use of revision control tools over the past four decades, as people have become familiar with the capabilities of their tools and constrained by their limitations.</para> - <para>The first generation began by managing single files on + <para id="x_8a">The first generation began by managing single files on individual computers. Although these tools represented a huge advance over ad-hoc manual revision control, their locking model and reliance on a single computer limited them to small, tightly-knit teams.</para> - <para>The second generation loosened these constraints by moving + <para id="x_8b">The second generation loosened these constraints by moving to network-centered architectures, and managing entire projects at a time. As projects grew larger, they ran into new problems. With clients needing to talk to servers very frequently, server @@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ tools to interact with a project in a natural way, as they could not record their changes.</para> - <para>The current generation of revision control tools is + <para id="x_8c">The current generation of revision control tools is peer-to-peer in nature. All of these systems have dropped the dependency on a single central server, and allow people to distribute their revision control data to where it's actually @@ -217,14 +217,14 @@ <title>A few of the advantages of distributed revision control</title> - <para>Even though distributed revision control tools have for + <para id="x_8d">Even though distributed revision control tools have for several years been as robust and usable as their previous-generation counterparts, people using older tools have not yet necessarily woken up to their advantages. There are a number of ways in which distributed tools shine relative to centralised ones.</para> - <para>For an individual developer, distributed tools are almost + <para id="x_8e">For an individual developer, distributed tools are almost always much faster than centralised tools. This is for a simple reason: a centralised tool needs to talk over the network for many common operations, because most metadata is stored in a @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ going to spend a lot of time interacting with your revision control software.</para> - <para>Distributed tools are indifferent to the vagaries of your + <para id="x_8f">Distributed tools are indifferent to the vagaries of your server infrastructure, again because they replicate metadata to so many locations. If you use a centralised system and your server catches fire, you'd better hope that your backup media @@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ worked. With a distributed tool, you have many backups available on every contributor's computer.</para> - <para>The reliability of your network will affect distributed + <para id="x_90">The reliability of your network will affect distributed tools far less than it will centralised tools. You can't even use a centralised tool without a network connection, except for a few highly constrained commands. With a distributed tool, if @@ -256,7 +256,7 @@ <sect2> <title>Advantages for open source projects</title> - <para>If you take a shine to an open source project and decide + <para id="x_91">If you take a shine to an open source project and decide that you would like to start hacking on it, and that project uses a distributed revision control tool, you are at once a peer with the people who consider themselves the @@ -274,7 +274,7 @@ <sect3> <title>The forking non-problem</title> - <para>It has been suggested that distributed revision control + <para id="x_92">It has been suggested that distributed revision control tools pose some sort of risk to open source projects because they make it easy to <quote>fork</quote> the development of a project. A fork happens when there are differences in @@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ project's source code, and goes off in its own direction.</para> - <para>Sometimes the camps in a fork decide to reconcile their + <para id="x_93">Sometimes the camps in a fork decide to reconcile their differences. With a centralised revision control system, the <emphasis>technical</emphasis> process of reconciliation is painful, and has to be performed largely by hand. You have @@ -293,7 +293,7 @@ the tree somehow. This usually loses some or all of one side's revision history.</para> - <para>What distributed tools do with respect to forking is + <para id="x_94">What distributed tools do with respect to forking is they make forking the <emphasis>only</emphasis> way to develop a project. Every single change that you make is potentially a fork point. The great strength of this @@ -302,23 +302,23 @@ because forks are absolutely fundamental: they happen all the time.</para> - <para>If every piece of work that everybody does, all the + <para id="x_95">If every piece of work that everybody does, all the time, is framed in terms of forking and merging, then what the open source world refers to as a <quote>fork</quote> becomes <emphasis>purely</emphasis> a social issue. If anything, distributed tools <emphasis>lower</emphasis> the likelihood of a fork:</para> <itemizedlist> - <listitem><para>They eliminate the social distinction that + <listitem><para id="x_96">They eliminate the social distinction that centralised tools impose: that between insiders (people with commit access) and outsiders (people without).</para></listitem> - <listitem><para>They make it easier to reconcile after a + <listitem><para id="x_97">They make it easier to reconcile after a social fork, because all that's involved from the perspective of the revision control software is just another merge.</para></listitem></itemizedlist> - <para>Some people resist distributed tools because they want + <para id="x_98">Some people resist distributed tools because they want to retain tight control over their projects, and they believe that centralised tools give them this control. However, if you're of this belief, and you publish your CVS @@ -335,7 +335,7 @@ <sect2> <title>Advantages for commercial projects</title> - <para>Many commercial projects are undertaken by teams that are + <para id="x_99">Many commercial projects are undertaken by teams that are scattered across the globe. Contributors who are far from a central server will see slower command execution and perhaps less reliability. Commercial revision control systems attempt @@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ there's no redundant communication between repositories over expensive long-haul network links.</para> - <para>Centralised revision control systems tend to have + <para id="x_9a">Centralised revision control systems tend to have relatively low scalability. It's not unusual for an expensive centralised system to fall over under the combined load of just a few dozen concurrent users. Once again, the typical @@ -359,7 +359,7 @@ replication to balance load becomes a simple matter of scripting.</para> - <para>If you have an employee in the field, troubleshooting a + <para id="x_9b">If you have an employee in the field, troubleshooting a problem at a customer's site, they'll benefit from distributed revision control. The tool will let them generate custom builds, try different fixes in isolation from each other, and @@ -372,35 +372,35 @@ <sect1> <title>Why choose Mercurial?</title> - <para>Mercurial has a unique set of properties that make it a + <para id="x_9c">Mercurial has a unique set of properties that make it a particularly good choice as a revision control system.</para> <itemizedlist> - <listitem><para>It is easy to learn and use.</para></listitem> - <listitem><para>It is lightweight.</para></listitem> - <listitem><para>It scales excellently.</para></listitem> - <listitem><para>It is easy to + <listitem><para id="x_9d">It is easy to learn and use.</para></listitem> + <listitem><para id="x_9e">It is lightweight.</para></listitem> + <listitem><para id="x_9f">It scales excellently.</para></listitem> + <listitem><para id="x_a0">It is easy to customise.</para></listitem></itemizedlist> - <para>If you are at all familiar with revision control systems, + <para id="x_a1">If you are at all familiar with revision control systems, you should be able to get up and running with Mercurial in less than five minutes. Even if not, it will take no more than a few minutes longer. Mercurial's command and feature sets are generally uniform and consistent, so you can keep track of a few general rules instead of a host of exceptions.</para> - <para>On a small project, you can start working with Mercurial in + <para id="x_a2">On a small project, you can start working with Mercurial in moments. Creating new changes and branches; transferring changes around (whether locally or over a network); and history and status operations are all fast. Mercurial attempts to stay nimble and largely out of your way by combining low cognitive overhead with blazingly fast operations.</para> - <para>The usefulness of Mercurial is not limited to small + <para id="x_a3">The usefulness of Mercurial is not limited to small projects: it is used by projects with hundreds to thousands of contributors, each containing tens of thousands of files and hundreds of megabytes of source code.</para> - <para>If the core functionality of Mercurial is not enough for + <para id="x_a4">If the core functionality of Mercurial is not enough for you, it's easy to build on. Mercurial is well suited to scripting tasks, and its clean internals and implementation in Python make it easy to add features in the form of extensions. @@ -412,7 +412,7 @@ <sect1> <title>Mercurial compared with other tools</title> - <para>Before you read on, please understand that this section + <para id="x_a5">Before you read on, please understand that this section necessarily reflects my own experiences, interests, and (dare I say it) biases. I have used every one of the revision control tools listed below, in most cases for several years at a @@ -422,22 +422,22 @@ <sect2> <title>Subversion</title> - <para>Subversion is a popular revision control tool, developed + <para id="x_a6">Subversion is a popular revision control tool, developed to replace CVS. It has a centralised client/server architecture.</para> - <para>Subversion and Mercurial have similarly named commands for + <para id="x_a7">Subversion and Mercurial have similarly named commands for performing the same operations, so if you're familiar with one, it is easy to learn to use the other. Both tools are portable to all popular operating systems.</para> - <para>Prior to version 1.5, Subversion had no useful support for + <para id="x_a8">Prior to version 1.5, Subversion had no useful support for merges. At the time of writing, its merge tracking capability is new, and known to be <ulink url="http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.branchmerge.advanced.html#svn.branchmerge.advanced.finalword">complicated and buggy</ulink>.</para> - <para>Mercurial has a substantial performance advantage over + <para id="x_a9">Mercurial has a substantial performance advantage over Subversion on every revision control operation I have benchmarked. I have measured its advantage as ranging from a factor of two to a factor of six when compared with Subversion @@ -450,7 +450,7 @@ and network bandwidth become bottlenecks for modestly large projects.</para> - <para>Additionally, Subversion incurs substantial storage + <para id="x_aa">Additionally, Subversion incurs substantial storage overhead to avoid network transactions for a few common operations, such as finding modified files (<literal>status</literal>) and displaying modifications @@ -460,13 +460,13 @@ even though the Mercurial repository contains a complete history of the project.</para> - <para>Subversion is widely supported by third party tools. + <para id="x_ab">Subversion is widely supported by third party tools. Mercurial currently lags considerably in this area. This gap is closing, however, and indeed some of Mercurial's GUI tools now outshine their Subversion equivalents. Like Mercurial, Subversion has an excellent user manual.</para> - <para>Because Subversion doesn't store revision history on the + <para id="x_ac">Because Subversion doesn't store revision history on the client, it is well suited to managing projects that deal with lots of large, opaque binary files. If you check in fifty revisions to an incompressible 10MB file, Subversion's @@ -475,14 +475,14 @@ of revisions, because the differences between each revision are large.</para> - <para>In addition, it's often difficult or, more usually, + <para id="x_ad">In addition, it's often difficult or, more usually, impossible to merge different versions of a binary file. Subversion's ability to let a user lock a file, so that they temporarily have the exclusive right to commit changes to it, can be a significant advantage to a project where binary files are widely used.</para> - <para>Mercurial can import revision history from a Subversion + <para id="x_ae">Mercurial can import revision history from a Subversion repository. It can also export revision history to a Subversion repository. This makes it easy to <quote>test the waters</quote> and use Mercurial and Subversion in parallel @@ -496,24 +496,24 @@ <sect2> <title>Git</title> - <para>Git is a distributed revision control tool that was + <para id="x_af">Git is a distributed revision control tool that was developed for managing the Linux kernel source tree. Like Mercurial, its early design was somewhat influenced by Monotone.</para> - <para>Git has a very large command set, with version 1.5.0 + <para id="x_b0">Git has a very large command set, with version 1.5.0 providing 139 individual commands. It has something of a reputation for being difficult to learn. Compared to Git, Mercurial has a strong focus on simplicity.</para> - <para>In terms of performance, Git is extremely fast. In + <para id="x_b1">In terms of performance, Git is extremely fast. In several cases, it is faster than Mercurial, at least on Linux, while Mercurial performs better on other operations. However, on Windows, the performance and general level of support that Git provides is, at the time of writing, far behind that of Mercurial.</para> - <para>While a Mercurial repository needs no maintenance, a Git + <para id="x_b2">While a Mercurial repository needs no maintenance, a Git repository requires frequent manual <quote>repacks</quote> of its metadata. Without these, performance degrades, while space usage grows rapidly. A server that contains many Git @@ -524,13 +524,13 @@ slightly smaller than a Mercurial repository, but an unpacked repository is several orders of magnitude larger.</para> - <para>The core of Git is written in C. Many Git commands are + <para id="x_b3">The core of Git is written in C. Many Git commands are implemented as shell or Perl scripts, and the quality of these scripts varies widely. I have encountered several instances where scripts charged along blindly in the presence of errors that should have been fatal.</para> - <para>Mercurial can import revision history from a Git + <para id="x_b4">Mercurial can import revision history from a Git repository.</para> @@ -538,11 +538,11 @@ <sect2> <title>CVS</title> - <para>CVS is probably the most widely used revision control tool + <para id="x_b5">CVS is probably the most widely used revision control tool in the world. Due to its age and internal untidiness, it has been only lightly maintained for many years.</para> - <para>It has a centralised client/server architecture. It does + <para id="x_b6">It has a centralised client/server architecture. It does not group related file changes into atomic commits, making it easy for people to <quote>break the build</quote>: one person can successfully commit part of a change and then be blocked @@ -554,7 +554,7 @@ the changes made to each file involved (if you even know what those files were).</para> - <para>CVS has a muddled notion of tags and branches that I will + <para id="x_b7">CVS has a muddled notion of tags and branches that I will not attempt to even describe. It does not support renaming of files or directories well, making it easy to corrupt a repository. It has almost no internal consistency checking @@ -562,7 +562,7 @@ whether or how a repository is corrupt. I would not recommend CVS for any project, existing or new.</para> - <para>Mercurial can import CVS revision history. However, there + <para id="x_b8">Mercurial can import CVS revision history. However, there are a few caveats that apply; these are true of every other revision control tool's CVS importer, too. Due to CVS's lack of atomic changes and unversioned filesystem hierarchy, it is @@ -576,7 +576,7 @@ the less interesting problems I can recall from personal experience).</para> - <para>Mercurial can import revision history from a CVS + <para id="x_b9">Mercurial can import revision history from a CVS repository.</para> @@ -584,13 +584,13 @@ <sect2> <title>Commercial tools</title> - <para>Perforce has a centralised client/server architecture, + <para id="x_ba">Perforce has a centralised client/server architecture, with no client-side caching of any data. Unlike modern revision control tools, Perforce requires that a user run a command to inform the server about every file they intend to edit.</para> - <para>The performance of Perforce is quite good for small teams, + <para id="x_bb">The performance of Perforce is quite good for small teams, but it falls off rapidly as the number of users grows beyond a few dozen. Modestly large Perforce installations require the deployment of proxies to cope with the load their users @@ -601,16 +601,16 @@ <sect2> <title>Choosing a revision control tool</title> - <para>With the exception of CVS, all of the tools listed above + <para id="x_bc">With the exception of CVS, all of the tools listed above have unique strengths that suit them to particular styles of work. There is no single revision control tool that is best in all situations.</para> - <para>As an example, Subversion is a good choice for working + <para id="x_bd">As an example, Subversion is a good choice for working with frequently edited binary files, due to its centralised nature and support for file locking.</para> - <para>I personally find Mercurial's properties of simplicity, + <para id="x_be">I personally find Mercurial's properties of simplicity, performance, and good merge support to be a compelling combination that has served me well for several years.</para> @@ -620,7 +620,7 @@ <sect1> <title>Switching from another tool to Mercurial</title> - <para>Mercurial is bundled with an extension named <literal + <para id="x_bf">Mercurial is bundled with an extension named <literal role="hg-ext">convert</literal>, which can incrementally import revision history from several other revision control tools. By <quote>incremental</quote>, I mean that you can @@ -628,21 +628,21 @@ the conversion later to obtain new changes that happened after the initial conversion.</para> - <para>The revision control tools supported by <literal + <para id="x_c0">The revision control tools supported by <literal role="hg-ext">convert</literal> are as follows:</para> <itemizedlist> - <listitem><para>Subversion</para></listitem> - <listitem><para>CVS</para></listitem> - <listitem><para>Git</para></listitem> - <listitem><para>Darcs</para></listitem></itemizedlist> + <listitem><para id="x_c1">Subversion</para></listitem> + <listitem><para id="x_c2">CVS</para></listitem> + <listitem><para id="x_c3">Git</para></listitem> + <listitem><para id="x_c4">Darcs</para></listitem></itemizedlist> - <para>In addition, <literal role="hg-ext">convert</literal> can + <para id="x_c5">In addition, <literal role="hg-ext">convert</literal> can export changes from Mercurial to Subversion. This makes it possible to try Subversion and Mercurial in parallel before committing to a switchover, without risking the loss of any work.</para> - <para>The <command role="hg-ext-convert">convert</command> command + <para id="x_c6">The <command role="hg-ext-convert">convert</command> command is easy to use. Simply point it at the path or URL of the source repository, optionally give it the name of the destination repository, and it will start working. After the @@ -653,7 +653,7 @@ <sect1> <title>A short history of revision control</title> - <para>The best known of the old-time revision control tools is + <para id="x_c7">The best known of the old-time revision control tools is SCCS (Source Code Control System), which Marc Rochkind wrote at Bell Labs, in the early 1970s. SCCS operated on individual files, and required every person working on a project to have @@ -664,13 +664,13 @@ modifying those files without the help of an administrator.</para> - <para>Walter Tichy developed a free alternative to SCCS in the + <para id="x_c8">Walter Tichy developed a free alternative to SCCS in the early 1980s; he called his program RCS (Revision Control System). Like SCCS, RCS required developers to work in a single shared workspace, and to lock files to prevent multiple people from modifying them simultaneously.</para> - <para>Later in the 1980s, Dick Grune used RCS as a building block + <para id="x_c9">Later in the 1980s, Dick Grune used RCS as a building block for a set of shell scripts he initially called cmt, but then renamed to CVS (Concurrent Versions System). The big innovation of CVS was that it let developers work simultaneously and @@ -681,7 +681,7 @@ their copies independently. They had to merge their edits prior to committing changes to the central repository.</para> - <para>Brian Berliner took Grune's original scripts and rewrote + <para id="x_ca">Brian Berliner took Grune's original scripts and rewrote them in C, releasing in 1989 the code that has since developed into the modern version of CVS. CVS subsequently acquired the ability to operate over a network connection, giving it a @@ -692,14 +692,14 @@ server is. CVS has been enormously successful; it is probably the world's most widely used revision control system.</para> - <para>In the early 1990s, Sun Microsystems developed an early + <para id="x_cb">In the early 1990s, Sun Microsystems developed an early distributed revision control system, called TeamWare. A TeamWare workspace contains a complete copy of the project's history. TeamWare has no notion of a central repository. (CVS relied upon RCS for its history storage; TeamWare used SCCS.)</para> - <para>As the 1990s progressed, awareness grew of a number of + <para id="x_cc">As the 1990s progressed, awareness grew of a number of problems with CVS. It records simultaneous changes to multiple files individually, instead of grouping them together as a single logically atomic operation. It does not manage its file @@ -709,7 +709,7 @@ level</quote> of fixing these architectural problems prohibitive.</para> - <para>In 2001, Jim Blandy and Karl Fogel, two developers who had + <para id="x_cd">In 2001, Jim Blandy and Karl Fogel, two developers who had worked on CVS, started a project to replace it with a tool that would have a better architecture and cleaner code. The result, Subversion, does not stray from CVS's centralised client/server @@ -718,7 +718,7 @@ generally better tool than CVS. Since its initial release, it has rapidly grown in popularity.</para> - <para>More or less simultaneously, Graydon Hoare began working on + <para id="x_ce">More or less simultaneously, Graydon Hoare began working on an ambitious distributed revision control system that he named Monotone. While Monotone addresses many of CVS's design flaws and has a peer-to-peer architecture, it goes beyond earlier (and @@ -727,7 +727,7 @@ integral notion of <quote>trust</quote> for code from different sources.</para> - <para>Mercurial began life in 2005. While a few aspects of its + <para id="x_cf">Mercurial began life in 2005. While a few aspects of its design are influenced by Monotone, Mercurial focuses on ease of use, high performance, and scalability to very large projects.</para> @@ -737,12 +737,12 @@ <sect1> <title>Colophon&emdash;this book is Free</title> - <para>This book is licensed under the Open Publication License, + <para id="x_d0">This book is licensed under the Open Publication License, and is produced entirely using Free Software tools. It is typeset with DocBook XML. Illustrations are drawn and rendered with <ulink url="http://www.inkscape.org/">Inkscape</ulink>.</para> - <para>The complete source code for this book is published as a + <para id="x_d1">The complete source code for this book is published as a Mercurial repository, at <ulink url="http://hg.serpentine.com/mercurial/book">http://hg.serpentine.com/mercurial/book</ulink>.</para>