Subject: Re: VCS comparison table

From: Jakub Narebski <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:31:33 +0200

Erik Bågfors wrote:
> On 10/21/06, Sean <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:13:28 +0200
>> Jan Hudec <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>
>>> Bzr is meant to be used in both ways, depending on user's choice.
>>> Therefore it comes with that infrastructure and you can choose whether
>>> you want to use it or not.
>>
>> From what we've read on this thread, bzr appears to be biased towards
>> working with a central repo.  That is the model that supports the use of
>> revnos etc that the bzr folks are so fond of.   However Git is perfectly
>> capable of being used in any number of models, including centralized.
>> Git just doesn't make the mistake of training new users into using
>> features that are only stable in a limited number of those models.
> 
> This is just plain wrong.
> 
> bzr is a fully decentralized VCS. I've read this thread for quite some
> time now and I really cannot understand why people come to this
> conclusion.
> 
> However, if you do want to work centralized, bzr has commands that
> fits that workflow really good.

Read carefully: bzr is _biased_ towards work with central repository.
Default workflow (as for example using revnos, as for example using
"merge" for one repository and "pull" for other) of bzr is geared
towards star topology, i.e. some centralized repository.

That to be said, it is supposed to be able to work in fully decentralized
way, using revids. But then for example you don't have "simple rev
namespace" (moreover you have _worse_ namespace than git's sha1 ids).

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland