Re: Emacs Bazaar repository

[dhruva <dhruvakm@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>  Incidentally, why are we concentrating on "bzr log"? is that a
>  frequent operation?  With CVS, I find myself doing "cvs log" only once
>  in a few months, when I'm looking for a change corresponding to some
>  ChangeLog entry.

Since I did the original posting with 'bzr log', I will post my reason.
I have been using Git which supports multiple branches in the same
folder. At times, I just want to make sure if I have all the latest
changes pulled in. Ideally, a pull would have done its job, just that
I try to make sure. I do that with a 'git log -l 10'. Since there are
so many branches, at times I would like to know the activity and try
building the one which has the most recent modification.
I agree that it is not the most important feature but a required feature.

Having tried a bunch of SCM, I must say GIT way of supporting multiple
branches under the same folder along with its speed it a sure winner.
I was opposing GIT due to its non-availability on M$, it is history
now and the port they have is really good. The build is streamlined on
M$ too, I pull their changes regularly, build, install and use the
bleeding edge. It has not failed me so far.
 If Mercurial had the ability to truly support multiple branches in
the same folder (with out requiring me to merge all branches before I
can pull - pull works only if there is a single tip/branch), I would
have preferred it mainly because it just needs PYTHON and nothing else
(GIT needs PERL and SHELL).
Speed wise, I find both GIT and Mercurial very close to each other.
GIT may be faster but not noticeable to human perceptions (well on
emacs repository I have tried). Here, I give GIT a thumbs up because
it has data for all branches and still the fastest. If mercurial
decides to support multiple branches under the same folder, I wonder
what impact it might have on the speed.

-dhruva