Ok, flogging the dead horse once more: On Wed, 09.03.2011 at 11:11:35 -0500, Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org> wrote: > On Mar 09, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > >in my experience, in contrast to bzr (but that was 1-2 years ago, since > >then those projects switched to GIT), it was also "robustness" > > Perhaps. I've been using bzr for 4 years now and robustness has not been a > problem, at least as long as 2a format has been the default.
I'm just skimming through the list of plugins for bzr, and notice the following: A good proportion (the majority?) of things that plugins are provided for, work out of the box with git, or are provided easily by hook scripts which may be packaged independently/elsewhere (see eg. gitorious, or redmine's repository browser, which works ok for git, but barely for bzr). This makes it much less of a burden to upgrade, because I don't need to take as much care to update the plugins (which might even prove difficult or impossible), and it makes git actually better at cross-platform support, too, for the same reason. Conversely, I can upgrade (almost) whenever I want, and don't have to wait/work, or otherwise lose half of my functionality. Kind regards, --Toni++ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110309165306.27834.qm...@oak.oeko.net
