bzr-ng compared to mercurial?

[Erik Bågfors]

2006/2/9, Neal Becker <ndbecker2 at gmail.com>:
> It would seem bzr-ng and hg are quite similar.  What would be the main
> differences?

Well... hard to say. I suspect that both has their ups and downs. 
Please remember that I'm not that knowledgable in hg so I may be wrong
about future plans here.  Anyway.

* AFAIK hg has no plans for repositories, bzr has
* AFAIK hg has no plans for central branches/repositories, bzr has
* hg requires inteligens on the server, bzr doesn't (but will in
future support it also). This means that the "server" in bzr can be a
sftp (or ftp, or.....) server.
* hg doesn't track renames
* hg doesn't version directories, only files
* hg has a built in webserver, that you can run with "hg serve" (I
think), bzr has it as a plugin
AGAIK (not sure here) hg doesn't support plugins, bzr most certainly do.
* hg support multiple heads in a storage/branch/repo, bzr doesn't (you
need to commit a merge, which I think is more logical).
* hg doesn't automatically update the working tree, bzr does (if using
a standalone branch anyway). When pulling from another branch that is.
* I find it harder to see exactly what was merged in hg than in bzr,
which is important for me.

Now, I mostly know bzr so it's quite possible that I missed some
positive sides with hg.
I think hg handles large branches better than bzr does right now. This
will change in bzr soon I think.

Regards,
Erik