git and bzr

Sean Russell ser-bazaar at
Thu May 5 03:13:19 BST 2005

On Monday 02 May 2005 04:36, Harri Salokorpi wrote:
> Since my provider has occasional 40% packet loss "happy hours" and dying
> connections, I vote for remote operations that make sure that tree is
> always in recoverable state. :)

Oh, heck yeah.  Transactions all around; this was (IMO) one of Subversion's 
killer features.  In fact, I'd happily pay for a loss in speed for 
transactions.  Since each local copy *is* a master repository, I don't 
believe that bazaar can afford not to.  If I screw up my local copy of a 
subversion project, in the worst case I can just check the project out again 
and do some manual merging.  If a bazaar database gets munged, you're toast.

The trivial transaction implementation is to clone the .bzr directory before a 
transaction, and delete it after the operation succeeds.

Incidentally, has anybody (Martin?  Anyone?  Anyone?) looked at fastcst, from 
Zed Shaw?  It *is* fast, and has some good ideas.  Furthermore, the current 
version is written in Ruby, which is a lot closer to Python than... well... a 
lot of other languages.  Actually, at this point, I don't know which project 
is more advanced; I think fastcst has more implemented features, but the 
commands are sort of odd.

Finally, any theories on why we've had such an explosion of SCMs in the past 
year or two?  For a decade, it was RCS, CVS, and some commercial stuff.  Now, 
suddenly, we have a half dozen decent distributed SCMs, implemented in as 
many languages, and a couple good centralized SCMs.

### SER   
### Deutsch|Esperanto|Francaise|Linux|XML|Ruby|Haskell|Java|Aikido
###  ICQ:83578737 
### GPG:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : 

More information about the bazaar mailing list