Comparison with Git, Mercurial or Darcs?

[Ben Finney]

"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