Echoing a post: bzr vs. git

[David Cournapeau]

Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
>> Yes, if you deal only with one branch at a time, revno is OK. But
>> the whole point (well, at least main point) of using DVCS is to have
>> multiple branches. I agree bzr is a bit nicer to use when being in
>> one branch; but that's optimizing for the less used model IMHO.
>
> On the contrary, I find it to be optimizing for the most used model.
> 95% of the time I'm working, I'm working on one branch.

I am working all the time on one branch too, but I certainly use another
one for comparison (be it remote - as I do now with git since I use it
to maintain patches against svn repositories, or be it locally - to work
on bug, etc...). The history within one branch is not that interesting -
at least for short-lived branches. The differences between branches is
the interesting thing. I think once you collaborate with others, that's
how many people use bzr. For example, launchpad use branches
pervasively, and recommend to use branches for series, etc... It is not
easy to understand what's in one branch and not in another in bzr.

That's a point which nobody got right yet IMHO, the multiple branches is
still confusing in most tools around DVCS, but at least with git, I can
easily know what's in one and not the other through various means
(blame, log, diff). With bzr, it is not, because of UI deficiencies.

> The relative rarity with which I have to consider simultaneously two
> branches is, IMO, a _feature_; it means the VCS is doing its job by
> staying out of my way and not making me think about it much.

Or it means you are not using branches at all :) I can't see how this is
related to any bzr feature, though. If you want to stay in one branch,
without ever referring to another, fine, but that's not how I see the
open sources projects I am following which use DVCS work.

So the revno vs other is really whether you use branches extensively.
Which means there is some truth in saying that bzr is less "distributed"
than git, after all: the UI is optimized for the one branch at a time
case, and revno is one example. Git is optimized on the other direction,
and that's the direction I prefer, so it makes sense.

>
> Well, that's my point   8-}

At an high enough level, everything is just the same. But the reason why
I prefer git to bzr after extensive use of bzr is not because they are
the same :)

David