Re: What a modern collaboration toolkit looks like

[Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu>]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

  > Git:
  > 
  >       * The weak point is UI: it is very complicated. Currently
  > 	requires very steep learning curve even from users that
  > 	have prior experience (CVS/SVN stc.)
  > 
  > Does VC in Emacs overcome that problem?

It partially does, there are (BIG) missing pieces in the vc-git
implementation: vc-update and branching are not implemented.
And the UI for those 2 things is not good at all in Git.
(The underlying functionality works very well, but it is quite hard to
use if you don't have a thorough understanding on how Git works
inside...)

For vc-update: none of vc-git, vc-bzr and vc-hg implement it. vc-update
needs work in order to support these systems properly, they want to
merge on a whole project basis instead of file basis as vc-update
currently does.


  >     - Bzr seems to take second place. It has a long term progression path
  >       and support, very strict code quality and clearly defined
  >       development phases.
  > 
  > BZR may become a GNU package, which would be a reason to prefer it.

In the past surveys that I've seen Bzr was shown to be much slower
compared with Git and Mercurial and take much more disk space. Not sure
if that changed.

BTW, Mercurial was too easily dismissed for not very serious reasons in
the message you are replying to. It is used in a few very large
projects, it still developed and it works very well.


Hope this helps.