|
From: | Uday S Reddy |
Subject: | Re: base |
Date: | Wed, 25 Aug 2010 10:07:53 +0100 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 |
On 8/25/2010 1:19 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
I think it's related to bzr being inconsistent, complicated, and confusing, with no simple mental model for users to latch onto, and multiple operating modes poorly stitched together (it's not really clear what bzr wants to be; sometimes it seems like its trying to be everything at once -- and, predictably, failing at all as a result).
The criticism is understandable, but I don't think it is true.I think simplicity was a key design goal of Bazaar. The attitude is that you don't have to understand how everything works. Just use these basic commands and we will take care of making it all work. That explains why the documentation is so meager. It also explains why they are so opposed to adding things like rebase, which require the users to have a deeper understanding of the process to use them correctly.
My feeling is that Bazaar is mostly successful in delivering that simplicity. As a software guy, I can admire that. But also, as a software guy, I really want to know what is going on. That is where the problem is. I can't be sure, but the problem could probably be solved by somebody writing down a more in-depth manual of Bazaar.
But I haven't seen any evidence that Bazaar is bad software. If I think that something should be possible and try it, either it gets rejected or it just works. I learn something along the way. There is a place for software like that in the bigger scheme of things.
Cheers, Uday
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |