VCS comparison table

[Erik Bågfors]

> There _are_ terminology conflicts. For example bzr "branch" is roughly
> equivalent to one-branch git "repository";

Agreed.

> bzr "repository" is just
> collection of branches sharing common storage,
Agreed

> which is similar to set
> of git "repositories" with .git/objects/ linked to common object
> repository (storage area) or appropriately set alternates file
> (although that is not common usage in git, and for example you would
> have to be carefull with running git-prune); bzr "lightweight checkout"
> is equivalent to nonexistent "lazy clone"/"remote alternates" discussed
> on git mailing list but not implemented because of performance
> concerns; bzr "normal checkout" is I think similar to git "shared
> clone" (but shared clone is limited to repositories on the same
> filesystem); bzr "heavyweight checkout" is roughly equivalent to
> one-branch-only "clone" in git or cg (cg = Cogito).

This is wrong. There are two kinds of checkouts
lightweight.. and "normal/heavyweight".

I think you are getting this alittle wrong, and I think the reason is
that you are thinking of repositories, while in bzr you normally think
of branches.

For example, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that if I have a git
repository of a upstream linux-repo (Linus' for example).  I guess
I'll use "pull" to keep my copy up to date with the upstream repo? If
I then would like to hack something special, I would "clone" the repo
and get a new repo and that's where I do my work.  Is that correct?

In bzr you never (well...)  clone a full repository, but you clone one
line-of-development (a branch).  So "bzr branch"  is always a
"one-branch-only "clone" in git or cg".

"bzr checkout" is a "bzr branch" followed by a setting saying
"whenever you commit here, commit in the master branch also".

"bzr checkout --lightweight" is a way to get only a snapshot of the
working tree out of a branch. Whenever you commit, it's done in the
remote branch.

/Erik