How is Bazaar-NG related to Bazaar and Arch in general?

[David Allouche]

On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 10:22 -0500, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
> I think Bazaar-NG is a bad name.  The fact that this thread exists is a 
> testament to that.
> 
> Names are important.  If you have to explain to every newcomer the 
> difference between your project and another one which has an 
> almost-identical name but really is quite different, you have a clear 
> problem.  The fact that the command line names are "baz" and "bzr" makes 
> things even more confusing.
> 
> I'd suggest changing the name while the project is still young.  It worked 
> for Firefox.  Even "BZR" would be better than "Bazaar-NG", although it's 
> arguably still too close to Bazaar for comfort.

Even though I am strongly in the camp of "don't force feed education to
users", I currently believe that it is important to be aware of the very
special relation between baz and bzr.

Trademark issues aside, it's not the same difference as between
Firebird-the-browser and Firebird-the-database.

Bazaar and Bazaar-NG should ultimately converge: baz should eventually
be able to read and write all the persistent data used by bzr, so the
distinction should eventually become of little importance.

In the meantime the slight confusion is a good way to highlight an
essential planned feature of the bzr-baz pair: the migration path from
the Arch model (currently implemented in baz) to the Bazaar model (being
prototyped in bzr).

This migration path is IMHO an important thing to be aware of when
choosing baz or bzr today and in the near future: it's a promise of big
evolutions in baz to fix annoying issues of Arch, and it's a promise of
relevance of bzr to the existing Arch data.

On the other hand, the difference between baz and bzr is similar to the
difference between CVS and Subversion, and the difference in names has
obviously not hurt Subversion a bit. But maybe that parallel is not
valid, as the mind-share of Arch is much less than the mind-share of
CVS.

I think that is an interesting an important discussion, thanks for
raising the point.

-- 
                                                            -- ddaa
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20050604/2219bf52/attachment.pgp