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 [email protected] http://lists.madduck.net/listinfo/vcs-home
