Re: VCS comparison table
- From
Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>
- Date
- Oct 22, 2006, 01:00 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20061022010010.GB9082@thunk.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <200610220222.29009.jnareb@gmail.com>
On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 02:22:28AM +0200, Jakub Narebski wrote:
Show 6 quoted lines
> If I understand correctly bzr came to life much earlier than Monotone, > Mercurial and Git but it was in beta stages very long. Bazaar-NG > "repositories" to group bunch of "branches" seems inspoted by hg or git. > Git (and probably Mercurial) was inspired both by BitKeeper and Monotone. > Monotone started to be reasonable fast around time when Git and Mercurial > came to be.
Yes, bzr predates Mercurial and Git; I remember talking to Martin Pool about Bazaar-BG at the the 2005 Linux.conf.au, which was before the BK turnoff. At the time, I had considered using bzr-ng (which has since been renamed bzr), but it didn't have branch functionality at that point if I remember correctly. Both git and Mercurial started development at almost the same time right after the Larry McVoy announced the pending withdrawal of the BitKeeper no-cost license.
About one month after the announced BK turnoff date, I looked at the various options for transitioning e2fsprogs, and at that point Mercurial was **substantially** faster than bzr, and I believe slightly ahead in features. I also looked at git, but at that point Hg was easier to learn how to use, and I figured for a project the size of e2fsprogs, I didn't need the power of git, so I decided in favor of Mercurial because it looked like it would be easier for people to learn how to use it.
I think it's fair to say that the exchange in ideas have profited all three projects, and that the different projects have different strengths,
- Ted