Live data from Hacker News

Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

lists.gnu.org

31–40 of 317 posts

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#31
post #8

Oddly, both Bazaar, Git and Mercurial were created around March/April 2005. Why the sudden appearance of popular DVCSs around that time, and why did Bazaar fall behind the other two in popularity?

Cambrian explosion followed by consolidation.

Git and Mercurial were Linux affiliated.

In the end, when apps are similar and don't have fatal flaws, it comes down to a popularity contest.

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#32
post #8

Oddly, both Bazaar, Git and Mercurial were created around March/April 2005. Why the sudden appearance of popular DVCSs around that time, and why did Bazaar fall behind the other two in popularity?

Git won the popularity war because the Linux kernel used it and then Github pushed it mainstream. Frankly, Bzr never got as popular as Git and Hg because it just isn't as good. It's slow, has a bizarre (sorry) branching model, and came out of Baz and Arch which were downright terrible (to be fair, Bzr shares no code and was designed as a rewrite to jettison all the stupidness of Baz and Arch—nonetheless it is tainted…

Actually I think Github got popular because it was Git, not the other way around. At the time it appeared people just wanted to have git repos, Github was there, so they used it.

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#33
post #7

"git won the mindshare war" Sad, but true...

What's so sad about it? IMHO git is awesome.

I only use git:

- it has a lot of non-orthogonalities and non-closure operations (ie options on one command are different or not present on other commands)

- if the network drops, fetches and pushes have to start from scratch. For fetches, it would be nice to save partial packs and resume them. For pushes over crappy links, doing similar could be a potential DDoS, so setting up some sort of rsync box is probably better.

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#34

wow. please, please, you Emacs/LISP gurus out there: make a working modern package manager and integrate the browser like lighttable does. and perhaps rewrite emacs from scratch so that the source code makes sense in today's world not in 1980's world. unfortunately lighttable is staying closed for much too long, but something like it is desperately needed.

The command preceding this outburst was:

$ sudo braindump bachback.core|tail

;-)

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#35
post #8

Oddly, both Bazaar, Git and Mercurial were created around March/April 2005. Why the sudden appearance of popular DVCSs around that time, and why did Bazaar fall behind the other two in popularity?

One thing that git wins for me is interoperability. git's format-patch, send-email, apply and am subcommands make it very easy to interoperate with others using plain text patches on mailing lists for code review, etc.

At this stage, isn't a "bzr vs. git vs. hg" question at all. It's just "look, it's a patch".

I think this ease and ability to work losslessly with plain text patches gives git a clear advantage over bzr.

This functionality makes it really easy for people who don't know git to interoperate with people who know it.

Lossless interoperability with plain text is a key Unix principle (see TAOUP) and something that bzr lacks.

With bzr, everybody involved with a project must use bzr. OTOH, a project that uses git can work more easily with a whole spectrum of people since sending a simple patch to a mailing list provides exactly the same ease of workflow to git-using developers as a complex multi-stage set of changes that is heavily reviewed and modified before being committed.

(I don't know hg well enough to understand how it fits in here)

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#37

wow. please, please, you Emacs/LISP gurus out there: make a working modern package manager and integrate the browser like lighttable does. and perhaps rewrite emacs from scratch so that the source code makes sense in today's world not in 1980's world. unfortunately lighttable is staying closed for much too long, but something like it is desperately needed.

I agree - Emacs has to be rewritten on top of a modern rendering engine!

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#39
post #8

Oddly, both Bazaar, Git and Mercurial were created around March/April 2005. Why the sudden appearance of popular DVCSs around that time, and why did Bazaar fall behind the other two in popularity?

All of them emerged due to the end of license agreement for a free license of bitkeeper for the linux kernel. Git won due mainly to Linus personnality and the rise of "social coding" via github. Bazaar failed because, at the beginning, it was painfully slow compare to git and mercurial. It speed has increase over time, but bad reputation is hard to get rid of.

Git was by far the fastest, this was a big factor when evaluating the move from svn (or similar) to a new system.

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#40

wow. please, please, you Emacs/LISP gurus out there: make a working modern package manager and integrate the browser like lighttable does. and perhaps rewrite emacs from scratch so that the source code makes sense in today's world not in 1980's world. unfortunately lighttable is staying closed for much too long, but something like it is desperately needed.

Rumor has it that LightTable will be open sourced very soon, but I doubt it will ever take the place of Emacs.
Post reply on HN