On 12 Oct 2005 17:08:58 +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote: > > Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > You may still use tla, that just works. If you are risky, you may use baz > > as well, that works well for simple usages. For more non-trivial usages, > > in my experience, it may periodically show slowness, panic exits and lots > > of small annoyances (input verification, stdout vus stderr for chat). > > This is your personal experience, but Canonical is managing a very > large number of archives, and actually developed Bazaar because tla > didn't feet their needs.
If you mean the archives with only one long branch (imported cvs history) found on bazaar.ubuntu.com, or with one centralized-developement branch (may only guess here), then, yes, my use cases are quite different. > About reliability, Bazaar development introduced some new bugs, but > also fixed a lot of bugs that Tom never fixed in tla. Try to do a "tla > get [EMAIL PROTECTED]/..." for example. Therefore, in practice, whether > you find tla or baz more reliable really depends on your user profile. You are right, it is all personal. I am very annoyed by many baz behaviours, and find tla-1.2 or tla-1.3 to suit me fine (except for selective undo that I perform using tla-1.2.2rc2). Maybe this is because I use arch-magic tools along-side with tla, that help me a lot. Ack on Tom being a bad maintainer [as opposed to a scientist]. :) Regards, Mikahel. _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
