> 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 did even simple tests, and the numbers are really bad when bzr
enters the dance. Could it be due to the bzr design or the
language choice (python AFAIK) ? I think both ;)
> 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.
I do not even understand how to install these plugins :) There is
another thing that I am still trying to figure out: the
repository format seems to change quite often (you can check by
running bzr help init)
ALthough I do not like it, currently, I will try to maintain one
of my minor project with it just to see how things go.
The only advantage I see for instance, is how bazaar can follow a
project team by adopting quite simply how they work (workflow).
In that sense, GNU Emacs is likely to benefit from that. Dunno if
the same can be done using git. Git is enforcing a workflow (in
fact the linux kernel one) and changing how developers work is
unlikely to satisfy the maintainer team.
Now, we just have to pray to see if the chosen DVC could
cooperate with our own choice :)
Regards
Xavier
--
http://www.gnu.org
http://www.april.org
http://www.lolica.org
_______________________________________________
Dvc-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/dvc-dev
