VCS comparison table

[Robert Collins]

On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 09:41 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Robert Collins wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 11:20 +0200, Jakub Narebski wrote:
> > > 
> > >           ---- time --->
> > > 
> > >     --*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*-- <branch>
> > >           \            /
> > >            \-*--X--*--/
> > > 
> > > The branch it used to be on is gone...
> > 
> > In bzr 0.12 this is :
> > 2.1.2
> > 
> > (assuming the first * is numbered '1'.)
> > 
> > These numbers are fairly stable
> 
> And here, by "fairly stable", you really mean "totally idiotic", don't 
> you?
> 
> Guys, let's be blunt here, and just say you're wrong. The fact is, I've 
> used a system that uses the same naming bzr does, and I've used it likely 
> longer and with a bigger project than anybody has likely _ever_ used bzr 
> for.
> 
> It sounds like bzr is doing _exactly_ what bitkeeper did. 
> 
> Those "simple" numbers are totally idiotic. And when I say "totally 
> idiotic", please go back up a few sentences, and read those again. I know 
> what I'm talking about. I know probably better than anybody in the bzr 
> camp.

Be as blunt as you want. You're expressing an opinion, and thats fine. I
happen to think that we're right : users appear to really appreciate
this bit of the UI, and I've not yet seen any evidence of confusion
about it - though I will admit there is the possibility of that
occurring.

I think its completely ok that git and bzr have made different choices
in this regard, but I *dont* think our choice is in any regard 'totally
idiotic'.

[snip examples that are clearly predicated on how bk worked, not on how
bzr works].

-Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20061018/7df7846f/attachment.pgp