Why Darcs users prefer Darcs over Bazaar (was: pbranches style plugin)

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Mark Williamson writes:
 > <snippy snip snip>
 > > It wasn't until I read Larry McVoy's explanation of why git
 > > (or any other OSS VCS, for that matter) is not considered a threat to
 > > BitMover that I began to appreciate how important history really is in
 > > many applications.
 > 
 > Do you have a link to that, at all?

No, unfortunately I don't offhand.  I think I'm going to have to
Xapian every hard disk I own. :-)  I thought it was on the
fsb at crynwr.com list, or the gnu-arch-users at gnu.org list, but I can't
find it in either place.

The gist was that their best customers need to be able to track
exactly who added the code where and when, and follow it through all
branches, in order to meet contractual obligations for auditing in
many source licenses, or for defending/attacking in copyright
litigation.  Apparently git's features were not considered sufficient
(ISTR lack of container tracking was an issue there), nor were those
of any other FLOSS VCS.  I'm not sure whether it was merely the fact
that secure audit trails are not mandatory in any FLOSS VCS, or
whether there were historical data that BK provides that FLOSS VCSes
don't record.