Not a holy war - just some salient facts

[Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen]

On 12 Apr 2010, at 14:07, Tom Widmer wrote:

> Bzr has a few features that hg lacks:
> - shallow clones (aka stacked branches)
> - efficient renames/copies (and full rename tracking)
> - switchable branches (hg can do this for named branches, but not easily for clones)
> - Subversion branches (i.e. you can treat a Subversion branch much the same as a remote bzr one)
> 
> The architecture seems much more heavyweight in Bzr, which is perhaps not a good thing (and is probably the reason for the performance issues, though I'm sure it must have benefits as well). I believe the bzr codebase is at least 2x as big as HG...

Generally speaking, Bazaar is slow, error prone and incompatible even with itself. Unless you *absolutely* need some of its features, you'd be much better off using either Mercurial or Git. (I'd recommend Mercurial over Git, of course, but either of those is a much better choice than Bazaar.) One feature Mercurial (and Git) have which Bazaar lacks a notion of ‘clones’. In Bazaar, clones are branches and branches are clones…

I recently stumbled on a thread on emacs-devel where someone was complaining about the move from CVS — of all things — to Bazaar.[1] One of the messages claims that improving performance isn't one of the Bazaar developers' current goals…

[1] <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2010-04/msg00195.html>

--

Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen
danchr at gmail.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 1943 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial/attachments/20100412/2cc5fc55/attachment.bin>