BzrVsMercurial, choosing between the two

[Jelmer Vernooij]

Am Sonntag, den 06.01.2008, 23:33 +0900 schrieb David Cournapeau:
> Matt Nordhoff wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > Since there's a link to the discussion on one of Mercurial's mailing
> > lists, I thought I should put it here too:
> >
> > <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.numeric.general/18130>
> >   
> Thanks, I should have done so myself in my email.
> > I haven't read much of the thread or thought about this much. I will say
> > that I think bzr and hg are both good choices. If more of your project's
> > contributors are experienced with hg, it might be better to go with it.
> >   
> Yes, this is certainly a good argument. But maybe mercurial is missing 
> something from bzr I am not aware, because I do not know much mercurial. 
> IOW, I would hope for a more rationale comparison of the two, which is 
> the reason why I sent my email.
> > On your comment in the thread about bzr-svn using a different format,
> > you can 'bzr upgrade --pack-0.92-subtree' (in the repo and all of the
> > branches). That's the same as the new pack-0.92 format, plus subtree
> > support. You can also use the 'rich-root-pack' format, which doesn't
> > support subtrees, but is enough for bzr-svn.
> >   
> I knew about rich-root-pack (I think I mentioned that my discussion 
> about formats were an oversimplification, though), but did not know 
> about --pack-0.92-subtree. I do not see any mention of it in bzr help 
> format (with a recent bzr.dev checkout) ?
rich-root-pack is preferred over pack-0.92-subtree because the latter
enables an experimental feature (shouldn't be a problem though as long
as you don't actually use nested trees).

btw, I noticed a feature request for trac-bzr in the gmane thread to
which a link was posted. trac-bzr already supports multiple bzr
branches, see http://bugs.bitlbee.org/bitlbee/browser for an example.

Cheers,

Jelmer
-- 
Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at samba.org> - http://samba.org/~jelmer/
Jabber: jelmer at jabber.fsfe.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20080106/1a357acf/attachment.pgp