Comparison with Git, Mercurial or Darcs?
Ben Finney
ben+bazaar at benfinney.id.au
Wed Nov 4 07:02:57 GMT 2009
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org> writes:
> > > * The interface is far smoother and more consistent: it uses
> > > readline for command-line input, it handles Unicode properly,
>
> I'm not sure what Ben meant by that, but for the interpretations I can
> think of it's strictly speaking false (specifically, on Unix bzr is
> not going to handle mixed encoding directories correctly until PEP 383
> is implemented, ie, in Python 3).
No, handling mixed filesystem entry encodings isn't something I expect
Bazaar (or Darcs) to handle. The liberal application of a cluebat to the
offending party is my chosen approach in that case.
Rather, I meant that Bazaar allows me to put Unicode in, and get Unicode
out by default. Whereas with Darcs, I get the following joy:
$ darcs record -m "Refactor code to ‘add_eap_files_to_archive’ function."
[…]
Finished recording patch 'Refactor code to ‘add_eap_files_to_archive’ function.'
$ darcs changes --last 1
Wed Nov 4 17:20:28 EST 2009 Ben Finney <ben+foobar at benfinney.id.au>
* Refactor code to \e2\80\98add_eap_files_to_archive\e2\80\99 function.
And various other places it produces even stranger representations for
the same data.
I'm not wanting this to turn into a bug report for Darcs, but I'm just
answering what I meant by Bazaar getting it right as an advantage.
--
\ “The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold |
`\ in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think |
_o__) differently.” —Friedrich Nietzsche, _The Dawn_, 1881 |
Ben Finney
More information about the bazaar
mailing list