Martin Langhoff wrote: > 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.
It was pretty heavily influenced by tla/baz in the early days. However, it certainly switched into doing snapshots. John =:-> > > cheers, > > > martin
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ 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/
