On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 01:08:54PM +0100, Kaspar Emanuel wrote: > This discussion springing up on emacs-devel is likely relevant: > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-01/msg00005.html
The linked article is actually very interesting (bzr being decommissioned or not)... I partially agree with it but as always it depends on workflow and use cases (in my experience for non-open source usually a centralized system like SVN works better, expecially with idiot programmers:D); that bzr is slow (acceptably slow, anyway) is undeniable but, for example, strict immutability could be an asset (ask people writing safety system, certification entities often mandates such kind of auditing measures). A core developer gone missing also *is* a big issue... OTOH it also says that it is a stable/reliable system, anyway. Still they haven't fixed the proxy access issues... Personally I'm neutral on the bzr vs git issue (slightly like git better), but, for example, the 'commit ids' are not sequential and I don't like that... (also the --amend could be interpreted as an 'history changer'). In short it's a pro/cons valutation. For inertia I'd keep bzr to avoid changing stuff that works:P -- Lorenzo Marcantonio Logos Srl _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
