No, I'm talking about the way it does versioning. There is no clear way to unambiguously refer to a commit, because version numbers are repository-dependent and are clearly designed with the idea of the 'central' repository.
For example: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~bzr-pqm/bzr/bzr.dev/view/hea...
You see that this file has revision 6558. This version is repository-local as there's no way to create a distributed numbering algorithm without synchronization points (mathematically, bzr revisions are a completely ordered set). This fact underlines all the bzr design - it's ridiculously hard to work in a truly distributed manner with bzr. There's even that scary threat of renumbering, where numbers in the trunk _change_.
In comparison, hg and git are truly distributed - they're using hashes to identify commits: http://selenic.com/repo/hg/rev/8fea378242e3 This design makes sure that there's no single global ordering of commits, but there is always a clearly-defined local ordering (i.e. git/hg commits form a partially ordered set).