Bèr Kessels wrote:
Op zaterdag 25 februari 2006 15:31, schreef Adrian Rossouw:
BZR doesn't bring enough new to the table to convince me to use it. That said. I did promise i'd try it before bitching and moaning about it.
I am confident that you will at least be impressed :). It is not so much the commands that are sipler (which is the only real improvement of SVN over CVS).But the whole revolutionary idea and logistics of the bzr.
comparing BZR with SVN and SVN with CVS is like comparing A CMS with BASH and BASH/VI with DOS/EDIT for content and file management. BASH solves loads of issues with DOS. But both are still sharing the concept of the CLI. A CMS, on the web is just so utterly different, but it also manages content and files.
Bèr
I beg to differ. The 3 different version control systems I've used most recently are CVS, BZR and SVN. I've used CVS long enough that I'm very comfortable with manipulating the repository files directly, which one must do if one wants to move subdirectories around and preserve the change histories. That is probably CVS's biggest failing. I also know how to make CVS do the parallel, personal repository trick that impresses most people with BZR. BZR even impressed me with that, because even though CVS *can* do it, it is a *lot of work* in CVS whereas in BZR it is typing 3 fairly simple commands. I've used BZR with Chad (hunmonk) in helping him out with his undo/trashcan modifications to core. And at my full time job, we just converted our CVS repo to SVN last month, and so I use SVN every day now. BZR is not in any way an order of magnitude better than SVN or CVS. Saying BZR is like a CMS, and SVN & CVS are like command line tools makes no sense. For basic everyday operations, they are all roughly equivalent in what is typed at the command line. Where BZR makes parallel development in separate, but periodically synchronized repositories much easier than CVS, it falls on its face with having robust, complete, bug-free code. BZR is missing useful minor features available in CVS for reporting status and history, for example. BZR sometimes crashes due to bugs in code. (The last time CVS crashed was before you learned to read and write. :-) I can't draw as accurate a comparison with SVN, as I have not pushed its boundaries yet. So far, so good -- except that it's more verbose than CVS (as is BZR), and not using a simple flat-file repository structure like CVS, one cannot easily grep past versions to find things. Still, SVN offers significant advantages over CVS, although "simpler commands" is *not* one of them, despite what Bèr wrote. The day to day SVN commands are exactly the same as the day to day CVS commands. From a user's point of view, SVN's core advantages over CVS are: # Directories, renames, and file meta-data are versioned. Lack of these features is one of the most common complaints against CVS. Subversion versions not only file contents and file existence, but also directories, copies, and renames. It also allows arbitrary metadata ("properties") to be versioned along with any file or directory, and provides a mechanism for versioning the `execute' permission flag on files. # Commits are truly atomic. No part of a commit takes effect until the entire commit has succeeded. Revision numbers are per-commit, not per-file; log messages are attached to the revision, not stored redundantly as in CVS. So BZR would probably (have not investigated, but from the SVN docs it appears) excel above SVN in the same primary way it excels above CVS: it makes doing parallel repository development easier. But, as has been shown, one can do that with Drupal without converting Drupal's repository. People have already done it. Would this advantage be worth changing Drupal's core and contrib repos? Or are the downsides of going completely to BZR too big? ..chrisxj