On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 10:23:46AM -0400, Sean wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:13:28 +0200
> Jan Hudec <bulb@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Bzr is meant to be used in both ways, depending on user's choice.
> > Therefore it comes with that infrastructure and you can choose whether
> > you want to use it or not.
>
> >From what we've read on this thread, bzr appears to be biased towards
> working with a central repo. That is the model that supports the use of
> revnos etc that the bzr folks are so fond of. However Git is perfectly
> capable of being used in any number of models, including centralized.
> Git just doesn't make the mistake of training new users into using
> features that are only stable in a limited number of those models.
For one think I, like others already expressed, think difference should
be made between 'centralized' and 'star-topology'. Subversion is
centralized -- I don't think bzr is biased towards that kind of
centralization, though it provides tools (bound branches) to make it
easy.
I would agree it IS biased towards viewing branches as organized in a
hierarchy, while git strictly treats them as equal peers, which I'd call
star-topology (and I don't think it is because it _has_ revnos, but
because the user interface strongly favors them over revids).
On the other hand git is biased away from centralized (as in subversion
is centralized) in that it takes extra work to make sure you are always
synchronized (while bzr has bound branches to do the checking for you).
For open-source development, centralized is a wrong way to go, but
people use version control tools for other purposes as well and for some
of them staying synchronized is important.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Jan Hudec `Bulb' <bulb@xxxxxx>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html