On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:21:06AM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Colin Watson <cjwat...@debian.org>: > > I'm happy with the quality of the bzr import we did, and long preferred > > its UI, but even I have begun moving my projects to git in the > > acknowledgement that it's won the DVCS wars; > > I myself prefer Mercurial's UI to git, but have reached the same rueful > conclusion. One major point in git's favor is the fast-import stream > format - without it, reposurgeon would never have come to be and the > groff conversion would have been *considerably* more difficult.
Quite so, it's wonderful. (Although it's been picked up by other projects; I've used it for various imports into bzr.) > You say you're happy with bzr's UI. Does it not seem to you that bzr is > deeply confused about what its unit of work is? I tried learning bzr > in order to work on Emacs and found that the distinction between repos > and detached branches made my head hurt a lot. I've heard similar from others, but this has never bothered me (although the colocated branch model used by git is certainly *convenient* in many cases). I guess it fits my brain. It's probably several years too late to have this debate, though. :-) -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org]
