Xavier Maillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Given the fact that RMS speaks of fairness toward the GNU > projects, I bet we would have the choice between GNU Arch > (unlikely but...) and GNU bzr. From a "user point of view", > neither bzr nor arch statisfy me at all. Git is by far, most > superior in many ways to these two competitors.
I completely agree.
> I find it dumb to have such important and basic tools as only
> plugins. In the git world, these are very common to use and I could
> not imagine not having them at all.
Likewise. This is what turned me off of Mercurial as well -- in order
to give it functionality that approaches that of git, you have to
activate plugins. And bzr's plugins ("bzrtools") can sometimes lag
behind new releases of bzr.
--
| Michael Olson | FSF Associate Member #652 |
| http://mwolson.org/ | Hobbies: Lisp, HCoop |
| Projects: Emacs, Muse, ERC, EMMS, ErBot, DVC, Planner |
`-------------------------------------------------------'
pgpTjvZrtatLz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Dvc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/dvc-dev
