Re: VCS comparison table
- From
- Erik Bågfors <zindar@gmail.com>
- Date
- Oct 22, 2006, 00:13 UTC
- Message-ID
- <845b6e870610211713m413afd28tcdf24934df25d3f5@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <Pine.LNX.4.64.0610211655130.3962@g5.osdl.org>
On 10/22/06, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
Show 18 quoted lines
> > > On Sat, 21 Oct 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > And that work-flow is definitely not "distributed" it's much closer to > > "disconnected centralized". > > Side note: the only reason I think that distinction is worth making at all > is when comparing git to bzr, and even then this is a fairly subtle > distinction, and probably not a huge deal in practice. > > I obviously think git is a nicer distributed design, but in the end, if > you compare to something like CVS or SVN that isn't even disconnected, the > difference between git and bzr in this sense is basically zero. > > So I sound like I care, but at the same time, I realize very well that > when coming from a totally centralized world, the details we're arguing > are _so_ not important.
I have to agree. Personally I think both git, bzr and mercurial are all VERY nice systems. If they weren't all started about the same time, I doubt we would have all three.
I am happy to use either, but I have a small preference with bzr because it suites me. I'm saying this, just as a user, nothing else.
/Erik
-- google talk/jabber. zindar@gmail.com SIP-phones: sip:erik_bagfors@gizmoproject.com sip:17476714687@proxy01.sipphone.com