User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Vernooij: Bazaar-NG: 7 years of hacking on a distributed version control system

Vernooij: Bazaar-NG: 7 years of hacking on a distributed version control system

Posted Dec 20, 2012 19:15 UTC (Thu) by joey (subscriber, #328)
Parent article: Vernooij: Bazaar-NG: 7 years of hacking on a distributed version control system

This strikes me as a very hard thing to write about a project with which one is intimately involved, and which Jelmer manages admirably well. I only hope that if I'm ever in such a position I can create that much value on the way out.

There are bzr features mentioned in this that I didn't know about, as someone who only uses bzr very casually. One is handling of the the left/right sides of history, where one is simple (and presumably, good for rebasing) and the other contains all the detail of intermediate commits. It's apparently well ahead of git in this area.

I think it's important to keep in mind that, as the VCS area contracts and consolidates (which it clearly has been, for years), there's danger of losing innovative stuff like that. Another example is that I think bzr or other VCS developers would claim to have merge algorithms that are often better than git's for text files. It would probably be fruitful to find these ideas and bring them into git as add-ons.


(Log in to post comments)

Vernooij: Bazaar-NG: 7 years of hacking on a distributed version control system

Posted Dec 20, 2012 19:50 UTC (Thu) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]

remember that in git you can configure it to use arbitrary programs for diff/merge so if anyone has a better one (either for general text files, or for specific formats like XML or JSON) it's pretty easy to start using them.

Vernooij: Bazaar-NG: 7 years of hacking on a distributed version control system

Posted Dec 21, 2012 3:22 UTC (Fri) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]

> as the VCS area contracts and consolidates (which it clearly has been, for years)

On the whole, I agree. There was veracity[1] which showed up a year or two back (that's when I first heard of it at least). It's got some stuff from fossil (the "all-in-one") and also does formal rename tracking (which I think git got right here). The developers also mentioned that they don't like history rewriting, but I'm not so convinced that the history being an accurate representation of how the code was written is anywhere near as important as minimizing merge conflicts (via rebase) or making changes easily to revert (not easy if a change has 5 "fix typo" commits following it later down the branch).

[1]http://veracity-scm.com/


Copyright © 2018, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds