| |||||||||||||
Still working and usefulStill working and usefulPosted Dec 25, 2012 8:13 UTC (Tue) by cmccabe (guest, #60281)In reply to: Still working and useful by coriordan Parent article: Vernooij: Bazaar-NG: 7 years of hacking on a distributed version control system
First of all, kudos to Jelmer Vernooij for writing a great article and also for contributing to bzr and other projects.
To be honest, however, I think it would be a good thing for bzr to ride off into the sunset. I think most developers don't have time to master all of bazaar, mercurial, darcs, BitKeeper, arch, monotone, and git. You kind of have to pick one or two to focus on, and it looks like the community has made its choice.
I think everyone pretty much agrees that git has a lot of abilities that the other systems don't-- for example, the ability to handle big repositories without grinding to a halt. In contrast, the only thing that's ever been pointed out as an advantage of the other systems is a "better UI." I have the feeling that in a lot of cases "it has a better UI" is code for "I was exposed to it first."
With regard to the a-word, continuing to use a legacy system can mean "abandoning" the wider developer community, and that's far more important than any individual project.
(Log in to post comments)
Still working and useful Posted Dec 25, 2012 17:15 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
Have no fear, four of those packages have already ridden off into the sunset.
Of the remaining three, I agree, bzr is the least engaged. No need to hurry its departure, it'll happen soon enough.
Just imagine how many paid man-hours Canonical dumped into bzr...
not to mention it's a GNU project Posted Jan 7, 2013 14:06 UTC (Mon) by alex (subscriber, #1355) [Link]
The Emacs VCS is bzr because FSF favours GNU projects over non-GNU if they are functionally equivalent (and I believe an even split in preference amongst the devs).
|
|||||||||||||