On Wed, 2008-01-16 at 16:50 -0700, Alex Rousskov wrote: > > It is not about the version number, it is about being widely available > and used for a while. The first "mature" version of a VCS tool that > has > not been a part of major distributions for at _least_ a few months > does > not qualify, IMHO. We do not need to be on the cutting edge when it > comes to version control, at least not right now.
1.0 is in: debian fedora suse ubuntu netbsd freebsd but thats not really the point; 1.0 was a relabelling of an already mature tool to reflect that maturity. And 0.92 (the format that the repositories I created) has been in the major distribtions for 'a few months'. I can think of two reasons where being out there and available matters to us. One is for ease of access for users of our VCS (and the above list should help ease concerns there, though bzr will run from source with no compilation trivially). The other is that you expect bzr to change - in which case you will be asking that we wait months again for that version, etc etc. 1.0 of bzr is really not bleeding edge in my assessment. I guess the question is whether it is in the eyes of the other devs. -Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part