From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Ryan Anderson" Subject: Re: VCS comparison table Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:28:24 -0700 Message-ID: <87dcb0bd0610191628h2bbb5a3o8f445718312ac44c@mail.gmail.com> References: <9e4733910610140807p633f5660q49dd2d2111c9f5fe@mail.gmail.com> <45357CC3.4040507@utoronto.ca> <4536EC93.9050305@utoronto.ca> <87lkncev90.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <20061019161319.GA75501@over-yonder.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Linus Torvalds" , "Matthew D. Fuller" , "Andreas Ericsson" , "Carl Worth" , bazaar-ng@lists.canonical.com, git@vger.kernel.org, "Jakub Narebski" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Oct 20 01:28:37 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 1GahJU-0000y1-J6 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 20 Oct 2006 01:28:36 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1946670AbWJSX2d (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:28:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751618AbWJSX2d (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:28:33 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.33.17]:55574 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751615AbWJSX2c (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:28:32 -0400 Received: from spaceape14.eur.corp.google.com (spaceape14.eur.corp.google.com [172.28.16.148]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id k9JNSSCk020063 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2006 00:28:29 +0100 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: content-disposition:references; b=ILoBeDLDK67RoanCHlPsLgjjj75j8GgXOv3TF1ymsVzuW9dI648ue/Oi9e/fasX2c 8iXWF71renaBY2YzW/Gog== Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (pyff25.prod.google.com [10.34.32.25]) by spaceape14.eur.corp.google.com with ESMTP id k9JNRuwt000658 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2006 00:28:24 +0100 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id f25so967660pyf for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:28:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.20.3 with SMTP id x3mr806703qbi; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:28:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.83.11 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:28:24 -0700 (PDT) To: "Matthieu Moy" In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 10/19/06, Matthieu Moy wrote: > Linus Torvalds writes: > > > Btw, I do believe that bzr seems to be acting a lot like BK, at least when > > it comes to versioning. I suspect that is not entirely random either, and > > I suspect it's been a conscious effort to some degree. > > > > Which is fine, in the sense that there are certainly much worse things to > > try to copy. > > By curiosity, how would you compare git and Bitkeeper, on a purely > technical basis? (not asking for a detailed comparison, but an "X is > globaly/much/terribly/not better than Y" kind of statement ;-) ) Having used both in a past job setting (simultaneously even), BitKeeper was a huge win over CVS, but after a while, some of its tools were just very frustrating in comparison with comparable Git interfaces, and I had actually written a terribly slow BK -> Git converter just so I could incrementally import our BK tree, then use Git's history-viewing because it was so much more pleasant to work with. For small projects (~5 people), they weren't hugely different, but Git just felt more comfortable after a while. (It was actually possible to do a commit from the command line in a single command, without getting annoyed by the interface, for a trivial example.)