VCS comparison table
seanlkml at sympatico.ca
Tue Oct 17 16:06:55 BST 2006
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:19:46 +0200
Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy at imag.fr> wrote:
> Sure. As I said before, the little add-on of checkouts is that you say
> once "I don't want to do local commit here", and bzr reminds you this
> each time you commit. Well, where it can make a difference is that it
> does it in a transactional way, that is, you don't have that little
> window between the time you pull and the time you push your next
> commit. But this would really be bad luck ;-).
Yeah, it would be bad luck, but Git wouldn't actually let the push
succeed if someone had changed the upstream repo in that small window.
It would complain that your push wasn't a fast forward and ask you
to update before pushing.
> Sure. And at least, if you want to prove that your decentralized SCM
> is the best, you'd better look at features other than the ability to
> commit on a local branch ;-). If you want a _real_ flamewar, better
> talk about rename management or revision identity.
> The thing is that most people migrated from CVS/svn, so they found
> their new SCM to be incredibly better the existing. But it's generally
> not _so_ much better than the other modern alternatives ;-). (and
> don't forget to thank Darcs and Monotone who brought most of the good
> ideas you and I are using)
Heh, true enough. And the fact is they're all "borrowing" the
best ideas from one another. All of a sudden the others are all
getting git-like bisect and gitk guis. And of course Linus has
said that he got quite a bit of inspiration from Monotone
Beyond the distributed offline nature of using Git, the killer
"feature" for me is its raw speed and flexibility. It's
really nice to be able to branch in under a second and try
out a line of development etc. Maybe this is just as easy
in Bazaar but it's not true of say Mercurial. Honestly, I
just can't imagine any other SCM meeting my needs better than
Git. So I have a hard time taking complaints about rename
management or revision identity seriously.
While they don't affect my usage, IMHO the two biggest failings
of Git are its lack of a shallow clone and its reliance on shell
and other scripting languages so there is no native Windows version.
I'm sure both of these areas are handled better by Bazaar and/or
some of the other new SCMs where they'd be a better choice than
 As an aside, I don't understand why bazaar pushes the idea
of "plugins". For instance someone mentioned that bazaar has
a bisect "plugin". Well Git was able to add a bisect "command"
without needing a plugin architecture.. so i'm at a loss as
to why plugins are seen as an advantage.
More information about the bazaar