On 10/13/05, David Allouche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 18:07 +1300, Martin Langhoff wrote: > > Strange. Are you unhappy with the "new generation" SCMs that came > > forward in the time around the bitkeeper fiasco or soon after? Why? > > I'm personally really impressed with git/cogito and mercurial. Darcs > > and BazaarNG are also interesting, but as I've been burned with > > patch-tracking SCMs... > > There seems to be a misconception here. > > BazaarNG is much closer to Mercurial than to Darcs. Actually, > model-wise, BazaarNG and Mercurial are pretty much exchangeable. I > suspect the (publicly conducted) BazaarNG design phase was quite > influential to Mercurial.
Well, I followed Martin Poole's work on BazaarNG up until the point where git saw its first few releases, and BazaarNG was definitely patch-oriented back then. And Mercurial was tracking each and every move of git but in Python. Next time I look at BazaarNG, there's all this love of tracking file identities, and I can't fathom where it came from ;-) Anyway... I'm sure there's been heaps of cross pollination, and I'm don't necesarily know what influenced who and when. But one thing I'm sure: BazaarNG started off tracking patches, following perhaps the steps tla/baz and darcs. cheers, martin
_______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
