Re: Git mirrors

[Juanma Barranquero]

> This isn't relevant to Emacs decision-making, but unwarranted
> git-bashing is no more helpful to people thinking about what to use in
> their own projects than bzr-bashing is.

You say potato, I say warranted git-bashing.

> In actual practice, I don't think that's true.  Witness the complexity
> of BzrForEmacsDevs on the Emacs wiki.

Complexity? That page is almost sufficient to use Bazaar to develop
Emacs. "git help log" is several times longer.

> git does indeed offer more rope for getting yourself in trouble, but
> as long as you stick to the script, the basic git repertoire is only
> slightly more complex but substantially more powerful than the
> equivalent set of commands for bzr.  That means that your git workflow
> doesn't need to change as often or abruptly as a bzr workflow does
> when your role in a project changes (eg, from patch submitter to
> committer, or from typo fixer to feature creature).  And git has a
> simple model of commit (an "annotated cons") and branch (basically a
> named variable whose value is a list), which makes predicting
> performance and adapting workflows easy, and understanding complex git
> commands like rebase and filter-branch and submodule *relatively*
> easy.

That's git propaganda. You cannot seriously suggest that the git model
is universally simpler, just that you find it so. I'm glad for you. I
certainly had less trouble adapting to bazaar than git (and I was
already a git user the first time I tried bazaar).

> And there doesn't seem
> to be anybody here with huge expertise in bzr itself, only enough to
> explain how to fit into the Emacs workflow. :-(

That's not a problem. What we're interested in, is using bazaar for
the Emacs workflow. We can go daily working in Emacs without requiring
a huge expertise in bazaar. I'm not so sure with git. When I use it, I
spend quite a time looking (puzzledly) to man pages.

    Juanma