From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: VCS comparison table Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 21:00:10 -0400 Message-ID: <20061022010010.GB9082@thunk.org> References: <9e4733910610140807p633f5660q49dd2d2111c9f5fe@mail.gmail.com> <845b6e870610211713m413afd28tcdf24934df25d3f5@mail.gmail.com> <200610220222.29009.jnareb@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Erik =?iso-8859-1?Q?B=E5gfors?= , Linus Torvalds , Sean , Jan Hudec , bazaar-ng@lists.canonical.com, git@vger.kernel.org, Matthieu Moy X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Oct 22 03:00:41 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GbRhb-0008Q4-VE for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 22 Oct 2006 03:00:36 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422912AbWJVBAc (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Oct 2006 21:00:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1422919AbWJVBAc (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Oct 2006 21:00:32 -0400 Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:6634 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422912AbWJVBAb (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Oct 2006 21:00:31 -0400 Received: from root (helo=candygram.thunk.org) by thunker.thunk.org with local-esmtps (tls_cipher TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.50 #1 (Debian)) id 1GbRkA-0007j1-Od; Sat, 21 Oct 2006 21:03:15 -0400 Received: from tytso by candygram.thunk.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1GbRhC-0001aT-9J; Sat, 21 Oct 2006 21:00:10 -0400 To: Jakub Narebski Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200610220222.29009.jnareb@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on thunker.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 02:22:28AM +0200, Jakub Narebski wrote: > If I understand correctly bzr came to life much earlier than Monotone, > Mercurial and Git but it was in beta stages very long. Bazaar-NG > "repositories" to group bunch of "branches" seems inspoted by hg or git. > Git (and probably Mercurial) was inspired both by BitKeeper and Monotone. > Monotone started to be reasonable fast around time when Git and Mercurial > came to be. Yes, bzr predates Mercurial and Git; I remember talking to Martin Pool about Bazaar-BG at the the 2005 Linux.conf.au, which was before the BK turnoff. At the time, I had considered using bzr-ng (which has since been renamed bzr), but it didn't have branch functionality at that point if I remember correctly. Both git and Mercurial started development at almost the same time right after the Larry McVoy announced the pending withdrawal of the BitKeeper no-cost license. About one month after the announced BK turnoff date, I looked at the various options for transitioning e2fsprogs, and at that point Mercurial was **substantially** faster than bzr, and I believe slightly ahead in features. I also looked at git, but at that point Hg was easier to learn how to use, and I figured for a project the size of e2fsprogs, I didn't need the power of git, so I decided in favor of Mercurial because it looked like it would be easier for people to learn how to use it. I think it's fair to say that the exchange in ideas have profited all three projects, and that the different projects have different strengths, - Ted