Re: VCS comparison table
- From
- Ryan Anderson <rda@google.com>
- Date
- Oct 19, 2006, 23:28 UTC
- Message-ID
- <87dcb0bd0610191628h2bbb5a3o8f445718312ac44c@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <vpqlknc3zmn.fsf@ecrins.imag.fr>
On 10/19/06, Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr> wrote:
Show 12 quoted lines
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes: > > > Btw, I do believe that bzr seems to be acting a lot like BK, at least when > > it comes to versioning. I suspect that is not entirely random either, and > > I suspect it's been a conscious effort to some degree. > > > > Which is fine, in the sense that there are certainly much worse things to > > try to copy. > > By curiosity, how would you compare git and Bitkeeper, on a purely > technical basis? (not asking for a detailed comparison, but an "X is > globaly/much/terribly/not better than Y" kind of statement ;-) )
Having used both in a past job setting (simultaneously even), BitKeeper was a huge win over CVS, but after a while, some of its tools were just very frustrating in comparison with comparable Git interfaces, and I had actually written a terribly slow BK -> Git converter just so I could incrementally import our BK tree, then use Git's history-viewing because it was so much more pleasant to work with.
For small projects (~5 people), they weren't hugely different, but Git just felt more comfortable after a while. (It was actually possible to do a commit from the command line in a single command, without getting annoyed by the interface, for a trivial example.)