Subject: Re: VCS comparison table

From: Jakub Narebski <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 22:06:13 +0200

David Clymer wrote:
> 1. revnos don't work because they don't serve the same purpose as revids
> or git's SHA1 commit ids.
Revnos works only locally, or in star-topology configuration. They have
some consequences: treating first parent specially, need for merges
instead of fast-forward even if fast-forward would be applicable,
two different "fetch" operators: "pull" (which uses revids on the
pulled side) and "merge" (which preserves revids on pullee side).

> 2. bzr does not support fully distributed development because revnos
> "don't work" as stated in #1.
Bazaar is biased towards centralized/star-topology development if we
want to use revids. In fully distributed configuration there is no
"simple namespace".

> 3. Ok, bzr does support distributed development, I just say it doesn't
> because I think revids are ugly.
I think that bzr revids are uglier that git commit-ids.

If on the pros side of bzr is "simple namespace", you must remember that
it is simple namespace only for not fully distributed development. The
pros of "simple namespace" with cons of "merge" vs "pull" and centralization
required for uniqueness of revids.
-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland