Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org>: > I was never happy with bzr since it always was (and still is) very > slow. I much prefer git. Maybe a forthcoming maintainer has > different preferences...
Realistically, the only non-awful choice other than git would be Mercurial. As you say, bzr is slow, and it is deeply confused about whether its unit of work is a repository or a detached branch. I prefer the UI of Mercurial myself, but have made my peace with git's overwhelming victory in the mindhare war. I agree, though perhaps more reluctantly than you, that git would be the better choice overall. I have done large CVS and Subversion conversions to both git and Mercurial. I could do this one, too. For a look at procedure, see http://www.catb.org/esr/dvcs-migration-guide.html -- <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
