Re: VCS comparison table
- From
- Erik Bågfors <zindar@gmail.com>
- Date
- Oct 21, 2006, 16:19 UTC
- Message-ID
- <845b6e870610210919i6d086654g3881343e6a3c9f84@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <BAYC1-PASMTP116A2EE9056E50B25534D5AE020@CEZ.ICE>
On 10/21/06, Sean <seanlkml@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Show 13 quoted lines
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:13:28 +0200 > Jan Hudec <bulb@ucw.cz> 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.
/Erik
-- google talk/jabber. zindar@gmail.com SIP-phones: sip:erik_bagfors@gizmoproject.com sip:17476714687@proxy01.sipphone.com