On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 12:31 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull
<stephen at xemacs.org> wrote:
> I also just wrote a long post about the comparison of bzr to hg
> responding to a comment on bazaar at canonical.com. I won't recap it
> here but it might be of interest.
I found the post interesting. Here's a link to the start of the thread:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/2009q1/055805.html
There's a bit of bafflement there regarding Python culture. I can
relate--although I love Python, I don't feel like I understand the
culture either.
> It wouldn't be that hard to do a rewrite in Python, but the git
> programmers are mostly kernel people. They write in C and shell.
I mentioned this once on the git list and Linus' response was
something like "C lets me see exactly what's going on". I'm not
unsympathetic to this point of view--I'm really growing to loathe C++
partly because it *doesn't* let me see exactly what's going on--but
I'm not convinced, either.
It looks like there might be a Python clone sprouting here:
http://gitorious.org/projects/git-python/
> People who lean toward the DAG as *recording* history will prefer
> Mercurial or Bazaar. People who tend to see the DAG as a tool for
> *presenting* changes will prefer git.
I've noticed this tension as well. It seems to me that both uses are
important, so I suspect all three will eventually steal each other's
features with respect to this over time.
Mike
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4