Feedback from evaluation in a corporate environment

[Martin Pool]

2010/1/8 Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen at xemacs.org>:
>  > which as I understand is comparable in performance to Mercurial and
>  > GIT now.
>
> Don't believe all the marketing fluff you read.  Bazaar is comparable
> in performance to Mercurial or git *only* if you adapt your workflow
> to use optimized Bazaar facilities, including smart servers, shared
> repos, and lightweight checkouts.

Smart servers are a kind of funny example to pick, because the option
to do without one and push branches over webdav, sftp or ftp is, I
believe, unique to bzr.  For read access, measurements posted to this
list last year had bzr performing substantially better than git over
dumb http.

More generally, yes, it's possible to use most tools in a way that
makes them slow, and we have more to do to make the obvious way always
the best way.  Read the manual, or ask, or just try it.  It's not hard
to use bzr in a way that makes it fast and easy.

-- 
Martin <http://launchpad.net/~mbp/>