also sprach chombee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.05.16.1225 +0100]:
> It seems like it would be pretty good, perhaps better than git,
I find it very slow, but otherwise it's probably pretty much
equivalent to git and hg. Git is amazingly fast. That's most of the
reason why I use it, especially for large repositories like $HOME.
> Bazaar's own website, but:
>
> http://bazaar-vcs.org/BzrVsGit
I find most of these claims to be wrong.
But hey, to each their own. Try Bazaar and let us know how it works
for you!
A couple of quick comments to your most important points:
> * A remote repo can be just a directory accessible via SSH or FTP,
> you don't need a bzr instance on the remote server.
You don't need git on the remote server either.
> * bzr recognises files and directories, you can commit an empty
> file or directory, commit a rename of a file or directory.
You can commit empty files to git and renames are handled IMHO
better than in Bazaar. It's true about the empty directories, but
where's the problem? I usually just check in an empty .gitignore
file if I need to create a directory that's otherwise empty.
> * More direct support for the centralised server workflow. You can
> commit directly to a centralised server instead of committing and
> then pushing. Not sure how much I'd want that. You can also do
> local commits.
You can do that with git hooks as well.
> * "supports SVN-style checkout, whereas in Git you may have to
> download whole — possibly big — repository", I think this means
> you can checkout just a given file or directory from a repo.
True, this and subtree checkouts are not supported well with Git,
but you can do shallow clones.
> * I think it might track file permissions: "Security can be
> applied to different branches by using existing operating system
> access control facilities."
This is not true. It tracks the same bits as git.
> * Don't need to periodically pack repositories yourself.
Git does this automatically as well.
> * It has a Python plugin API, might be useful
True.
> They also claim it's up to par with git on speed, storage space
They "claim" :)
In my tests, it's absolutely not true.
> and cryptographic content validation.
Both of them do that alright.
--
martin | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/
"if one cannot enjoy reading a book over and over again,
there is no use in reading it at all."
-- oscar wilde
spamtraps: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
___
vcs-home mailing list
vcs-home@lists.madduck.net
http://lists.madduck.net/listinfo/vcs-home
