On 2 January 2014 19:56, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:28:04 -0500 > > From: "Eric S. Raymond" > > Cc: Karl Fogel , emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > > Eli Zaretskii : > > > I love bzr and hate git. I hope Emacs will not switch from bzr in my > > > lifetime, not to git anyway. > > > > I can understand hating git; the UI is pretty nasty, and there is at > least > > a colorable argument that containerlessness is a bug. I use git in spite > > of its defects, not because I don't know they're there. > > I use git, too. That's why I hate it, not because I've read about it > in some blog. > > > I don't understand loving bzr; my experiences with it have been > unpleasant. > > I would be interested to hear your apologia for it. > > I don't know where to begin. In a nutshell, it is simple to use, yet > powerful enough to give me several important workflows, and an easy > way to fix any mistakes I happen to make (although lately there are > almost none). It works on Unix and on Windows alike, and does both > seamlessly. Try running bzr with Python 3 for instance... Probably this is never going to happen. I took quite some time for bzr to become compatible with Python 2.7. Git works pretty well on Windows these days, but admitted this was not the situation few years ago. > The UI is orders of magnitude simpler and easier to grasp > that that of git. Is this so? Many things in bzr seem like black magic to me. Such assertions are extremely subjective, of course. > The documentation, while it can use some serious > improvement, is nevertheless orders of magnitude more clear than git's > man pages, which seem to have been written by some math professor who > can produce rigorous formal papers, but doesn't have the slightest > idea how to write useful and efficient user documentation. > I think the git man pages are pretty decent and the online docs are superb. > > And of course, everything is similar but subtly different from bzr, to > the point that I need to consult my notes on every step, for fear of > making a mistake. The switch from CVS to bzr was very simple by > comparison, even though the d in dVCS did require some mind shift. > I have the same problem using bzr - as everything is different from git in subtle and not so subtle ways. > > > Mind you, I think opposing git adoption is like trying to stop the tide > > from coming in, at this point (and have my own mixed feelings about > that). > > You probably don't know me well enough, if you are surprised by my > trying to stop the tide. > bzr has some pretty serious weaknesses - its conflict resolution mechanism is terrible for instance. On the Emacs side of things - git users can benefit from the power of magit and with bzr we have only vc-dir to work with. I think this is a tide not worth fighting. I had some problems years ago migrating from SVN (and the associated mindset) to git, but once I grokked git I've never looked back.