19 ms·

I'm really intrigued by this. I love mercurial (and tolerate git), but they both handle sub repositories poorly. How much of my mercurial (and/or git) muscle

by krupan 10y ago

I'm really intrigued by this. I love mercurial (and tolerate git), but they both handle sub repositories poorly. How much of my mercurial (and/or git) muscle memory would I have to unlearn to switch to bk. Just for basic commands, I mean. You could tell me to go try it out myself, but a nice side-by-side comparison showing that bk does all that git/hg do (if that's true) could go a long way to attracting git/mercurial people over to bk.

luckydude 10y ago
Well we support fast-import so you can get your history into BK and play trivially. BK does more and less than git/hg. It's got richer history, it was trivial to write a bk fast-export that git could import. Writing a bk fast-import wasn't so bad but an incremental one is hard because git doesn't store as much history (no per file history, actually no file object, just pathnames that have some data, not the same, we have a DAG per file, makes history better, makes merges faster and easier). Mercurial copied our UI so for a lot of stuff if you know hg <cmd> then bk <cmd> will just work. BK predates all these systems, they picked up some of bk's commands. There is a cheatsheet (somewhat out of date but it will get you going) at: http://mcvoy.com/lm/bkdocs/bk_refcard.pdf http://mcvoy.com/lm/bkdocs/bk_refcard.pdf And you can email dev <at> bitkeeper.com or hit up http://bitkeeper.org http://bitkeeper.org for more info. Cheers.