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]

Attachment: 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

Reply via email to