On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 10:32 +1100, Robert Collins wrote: > On Wed, 2008-01-16 at 09:46 -0700, Alex Rousskov wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 08:24 +1100, Robert Collins wrote: > > > So far I've heard of 3 devs trying the bzr tree, main concern has been > > > 'high' memory use (80MB) during initial pull, and that 1.0 is not all > > > that wide spread in stable distribution releases. > > > > > > I'd like to get feedback (or an explicit 'its fine') from hno, alex and > > > duane specifically before I suggest that we have consensus and are ready > > > to set a date for making CVS readonly and doing a final conversion. > > > > IMHO, we should wait until bzr 1.x is widely spread and, hence, better > > tested and documented. With folks pushing for Squid 3.1 release soon and > > a few large branches not integrated yet, I would rather not spend time > > on learning a new VCS and struggling with relatively immature software.
> Like all products bzr moves and advances; I would not classify it as > relatively immature because of its recently reaching '1.0' - it got > labelled 1.0 to reflect its maturity rather than immaturity. It is not about the version number, it is about being widely available and used for a while. The first "mature" version of a VCS tool that has not been a part of major distributions for at _least_ a few months does not qualify, IMHO. We do not need to be on the cutting edge when it comes to version control, at least not right now. Alex.
