David Clymer wrote: > 1. revnos don't work because they don't serve the same purpose as revids > or git's SHA1 commit ids. Revnos works only locally, or in star-topology configuration. They have some consequences: treating first parent specially, need for merges instead of fast-forward even if fast-forward would be applicable, two different "fetch" operators: "pull" (which uses revids on the pulled side) and "merge" (which preserves revids on pullee side). > 2. bzr does not support fully distributed development because revnos > "don't work" as stated in #1. Bazaar is biased towards centralized/star-topology development if we want to use revids. In fully distributed configuration there is no "simple namespace". > 3. Ok, bzr does support distributed development, I just say it doesn't > because I think revids are ugly. I think that bzr revids are uglier that git commit-ids. If on the pros side of bzr is "simple namespace", you must remember that it is simple namespace only for not fully distributed development. The pros of "simple namespace" with cons of "merge" vs "pull" and centralization required for uniqueness of revids. -- Jakub Narebski Poland - 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