4 ms·

Anyone have a link to toss in, or a comment, on a few issues ? Namely: - Binary diffs (svn is best was my impression) - Multi-platform (svn and hg do well ?)

by ableal 17y ago

Anyone have a link to toss in, or a comment, on a few issues ? Namely: - Binary diffs (svn is best was my impression) - Multi-platform (svn and hg do well ?) - Hg seems to get the most non-git DVCS uptake. Are the bzr technical merits enough to justify the push by Canonical/Ubuntu ? P.S. just took a look at http://bazaar.canonical.com/en/ http://bazaar.canonical.com/en/ ; I had not checked on bzr for a couple of years, and it looks impressive now, with plenty of multi-platform support and nice-looking GUI.

uriel 17y ago
Bzr is a huge and slow mess, I can't imagine why anyone would switch to it from git or hg.
- prog 17y ago
  Thats very informative. Thanks.
  - asenchi 17y ago
    Attempt to clone Emacs' repository (http://savannah.gnu.org/bzr/?group=emacs http://savannah.gnu.org/bzr/?group=emacs) sometime and you'll understand he's being very informative.
    - prog 17y ago
      Or I could stick to the launchpad mirror[1] which is extremely fast. savannah uses dumb http for bzr[2] and hence it is slow. I have been using the launchpad mirror for some time now. [1] https://launchpad.net/emacs https://launchpad.net/emacs [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/121222 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/121222
- ableal 17y ago
  Is it still slow in v2.0+ ? They quote 1.0 sec commits on the Firefox 3.5 repo test (vs. 1.1 for hg, 0.35 for git). ( cf. http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/migration/en/why-switch-to-bazaar.html http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/migration/en/why-switch-to-b... ) The http://whygitisbetterthanx.com/ http://whygitisbetterthanx.com/ site, sportingly linked to from the top of the page above, also has some comparative numbers (must click headers to show), but I don't see version numbers of the programs tested ...
- justrudd 17y ago
  I've had no problems with speed. How big of a repository are you working on? The largest I work on is about 70MB of source (code, html, images, documentation, etc.). I use a shared repository and branches take maybe a second or 2 to create.
prog 17y ago
> - Binary diffs (svn is best was my impression) I am not sure how svn handles binaries. I believe bzr uses binary diff ( http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-SVN-and-graphics-binary-files-p27413075.html http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-SVN-and-graphics-binary-files-p2... ) IIRC there is also a file locking plugin. > - Multi-platform (svn and hg do well ?) As you already mention (as PS), multi-platform support is good. I primarily use it on Windows and Linux. Haven't tried OSX but there is an installer. > - Hg seems to get the most non-git DVCS uptake. Are the bzr technical merits enough to justify the push by Canonical/Ubuntu ? I haven't use hg much so I can't comment on that but bzr does have better storage efficiency as mentioned at http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/migration/en/why-switch-to-bazaar.html http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/migration/en/why-switch-to-b... . Its closer to git in repo size. rename and directory versioning is first class (no need for .ignore files). Performance is comparable to hg. One reason I use bzr is its support for wide range of protocols including sftp, ftp. There are some good plugins like bzr-upload[1] that allow working with remote hosts. bzr-explorer[2] is also nice. Also, launchpad integration is really good. [1] https://launchpad.net/bzr-upload https://launchpad.net/bzr-upload [2] http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/explorer/en/ http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/explorer/en/
graywh 17y ago
Push? Bzr is sponsored by Canoncial.
- ableal 17y ago
  To me, it even seems mostly made by Canonical (they go into the issue). What I meant is: to they have a technical point, or is it mostly NIH/stubbornness ? (The desk I'm using right now has an Ubuntu machine, and a Mac; there are quite a few things in which Ubuntu is more pleasant to use than the Mac. In a few years, we may be saying that Mark Shuttleworth is the "Steve Jobs" of Linux, in a good way of course ;-)

by ableal 17y ago

uriel 17y ago

Bzr is a huge and slow mess, I can't imagine why anyone would switch to it from git or hg.

prog 17y ago
Thats very informative. Thanks.
- asenchi 17y ago
  Attempt to clone Emacs' repository (http://savannah.gnu.org/bzr/?group=emacs http://savannah.gnu.org/bzr/?group=emacs) sometime and you'll understand he's being very informative.
  - prog 17y ago
    Or I could stick to the launchpad mirror[1] which is extremely fast. savannah uses dumb http for bzr[2] and hence it is slow. I have been using the launchpad mirror for some time now. [1] https://launchpad.net/emacs https://launchpad.net/emacs [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/121222 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/121222
ableal 17y ago
Is it still slow in v2.0+ ? They quote 1.0 sec commits on the Firefox 3.5 repo test (vs. 1.1 for hg, 0.35 for git). ( cf. http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/migration/en/why-switch-to-bazaar.html http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/migration/en/why-switch-to-b... ) The http://whygitisbetterthanx.com/ http://whygitisbetterthanx.com/ site, sportingly linked to from the top of the page above, also has some comparative numbers (must click headers to show), but I don't see version numbers of the programs tested ...
justrudd 17y ago
I've had no problems with speed. How big of a repository are you working on? The largest I work on is about 70MB of source (code, html, images, documentation, etc.). I use a shared repository and branches take maybe a second or 2 to create.

prog 17y ago

> - Binary diffs (svn is best was my impression) I am not sure how svn handles binaries. I believe bzr uses binary diff ( http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-SVN-and-graphics-binary-files-p27413075.html http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-SVN-and-graphics-binary-files-p2... ) IIRC there is also a file locking plugin. > - Multi-platform (svn and hg do well ?) As you already mention (as PS), multi-platform support is good. I primarily use it on Windows and Linux. Haven't tried OSX but there is an installer. > - Hg seems to get the most non-git DVCS uptake. Are the bzr technical merits enough to justify the push by Canonical/Ubuntu ? I haven't use hg much so I can't comment on that but bzr does have better storage efficiency as mentioned at http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/migration/en/why-switch-to-bazaar.html http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/migration/en/why-switch-to-b... . Its closer to git in repo size. rename and directory versioning is first class (no need for .ignore files). Performance is comparable to hg. One reason I use bzr is its support for wide range of protocols including sftp, ftp. There are some good plugins like bzr-upload[1] that allow working with remote hosts. bzr-explorer[2] is also nice. Also, launchpad integration is really good. [1] https://launchpad.net/bzr-upload https://launchpad.net/bzr-upload [2] http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/explorer/en/ http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/explorer/en/

graywh 17y ago

Push? Bzr is sponsored by Canoncial.

ableal 17y ago
To me, it even seems mostly made by Canonical (they go into the issue). What I meant is: to they have a technical point, or is it mostly NIH/stubbornness ? (The desk I'm using right now has an Ubuntu machine, and a Mac; there are quite a few things in which Ubuntu is more pleasant to use than the Mac. In a few years, we may be saying that Mark Shuttleworth is the "Steve Jobs" of Linux, in a good way of course ;-)