... and the others?
Posted Sep 17, 2005 3:30 UTC (Sat) by kevinbsmith
In reply to: ... and the others?
Parent article: Mercurial: an alternative to git
I think Rick Moen's post is a pretty fair summary of many of the other systems.
In my mind, the big distinction between the first generation and the second is simplicity. Simplicity of UI, and simplicity of the underlying model. Gnu arch (tla) was extremely large and complex. ArX and Baz forked largely to simplify it, but they are both still somewhat on the heavy side. Monotone and codeville have simpler UI's, but they require a server daemon which makes them feel non-minimal.
Git (and cogito) popularized the "lightweight" tool, helping increase interest in mercurial and bzr. Of course, darcs had a great (simple) UI long before it became cool to have one, and it remains the most mature of the lightweight options.
There is a revctrl list/wiki/irc for mostly-technical cross-system SCM discussions:
A recent thread discussed which of these apps are likely to survive, but it mostly just emphasized the uncertainty.
Personally, I'm happy to see all these projects advancing so rapidly. None of them quite have all the features I need yet, but I'm optimistic that at least one will within the next few months. I doubt we will see a single dominant distributed SCM tool emerge for at least a year or two, due to different projects having distinctly different requirements.
to post comments)