Not a holy war - just some salient facts

[Masklinn]

On 12 Apr 2010, at 14:07 , Tom Widmer wrote:
> 
> Bzr has a few features that hg lacks:
> - shallow clones (aka stacked branches)
True.
> - efficient renames/copies (and full rename tracking)
hg has efficient renames/copies, and the directory rename tracking hasn't impressed me much so far.
> - switchable branches (hg can do this for named branches, but not easily for clones)
that's not a feature, that's a hack to paper over the lack of in-place branches and inefficient repository format, same as shared repositories
> - Subversion branches (i.e. you can treat a Subversion branch much the same as a remote bzr one)
hgsubversion
> 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 have yet to find the benefits (most of the time, bzr looks over-architectured, deep into architecture astronauts land), but I don't think the size of the codebase is the reason for the poor performances. Design (or lack thereof) and vision are much bigger issues of the Bazaar project.
> I believe the bzr codebase is at least 2x as big as HG…
Roughly 2x yes, bzrlib without its tests is 6.3MB, the mercurial library is 3.1MB