Re: VCS comparison table
- From
- Erik Bågfors <zindar@gmail.com>
- Date
- Oct 21, 2006, 16:35 UTC
- Message-ID
- <845b6e870610210935y2a97398enf18e17c41f123907@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <BAYC1-PASMTP01706CD2FCBE923333A0CBAE020@CEZ.ICE>
On 10/21/06, Sean <seanlkml@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Show 13 quoted lines
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:19:54 +0200 > "Erik Bågfors" <zindar@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > Have you been reading this thread at all?
Yes.
Show 10 quoted lines
> Even the bzr people have now > stated rather firmly that the revno scheme doesn't work very well in > a number of situations. Numerous examples have been given where the > revno will be useless, or worse misleading when bzr is used without > a central server. The answer from the bzr folks has been then don't > use the revno in those situations. However, it's quite clear from the > bzr UI that there is a _bias_ towards using revno's. > > So yes, clearly you can use bzr without a central server; but it's just > as clearly biased against such usage.
So... I do agree that revnos might not fit perfectly in at all times. But that they automatically mean that bzr is not a decentralized VCS, I strongly disagree with. They are just one part of the equation.
/Erik
-- google talk/jabber. zindar@gmail.com SIP-phones: sip:erik_bagfors@gizmoproject.com sip:17476714687@proxy01.sipphone.com