From: Ryan Anderson <rda@google.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 23:28:24 GMT
Subject: Re: VCS comparison table
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:
> 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.)