Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

lists.gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 317 posts

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#41

Post by mikro2nd »

>git won the mindshare war. I regret this - I would have preferred Mercurial, but it too is not looking real healthy these days

I confess that my perception of Mercurial is the diametric opposite of the author's. Recently I believe I have seen a modest resurgence of interest in Hg and increased uptake. Am I just seeing this through some peculiar VCS-warped glasses?

I believe that much of the popularity of git stems from github making it very easy to adopt, something that bitbucket doesn't seem to have pulled off as well.

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#42

Post by xradionut »

mikro2nd wrote: post #41

>git won the mindshare war. I regret this - I would have preferred Mercurial, but it too is not looking real healthy these days I confess that my perception of Mercurial is the diametric opposite of the author's. Recently I believe I have seen a modest resurgence of interest in Hg and increased uptake. Am I just seeing this through some peculiar VCS-warped glasses? I believe that much of the popularity of git stems f…

I hate when people say "git won the war", it sounds like an excuse to close minds and stop progress.

What if "Microsoft won the war"? Or vim? Or IBM? Or Java? Or Taco Bell?

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#43

Post by popey »

"most of Canonical's in-house projects have abandoned bzr for git".

Nope. Unity, Mir, Upstart, all of the new phone/tablet apps and platform tools are on bzr on launchpad.

Not disputing the fact that git has won the war, just nitpicking that point.

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#44

Post by sigzero »

davidw wrote: post #36

The Tcl guys are in a similar situation - they use Fossil. Which by all accounts looks pretty cool, but at this point it's "not git". http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/tip/www/index.wiki

If Tcl Core wanted to move to git, Fossil exports repos to that format. So they really lost nothing. They have a small team of commiters as well so Fossil works just fine for them.

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#45

Post by davidw »

sigzero wrote: post #44
davidw wrote: post #36

The Tcl guys are in a similar situation - they use Fossil. Which by all accounts looks pretty cool, but at this point it's "not git". http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/tip/www/index.wiki

If Tcl Core wanted to move to git, Fossil exports repos to that format. So they really lost nothing. They have a small team of commiters as well so Fossil works just fine for them.

It's more about attracting people with an easy barrier to getting involved. Granted, it's not really that big a deal (IIRC there are github mirrors), but it is an obstacle.

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#46

Post by EnderMB »

mikro2nd wrote: post #41

>git won the mindshare war. I regret this - I would have preferred Mercurial, but it too is not looking real healthy these days I confess that my perception of Mercurial is the diametric opposite of the author's. Recently I believe I have seen a modest resurgence of interest in Hg and increased uptake. Am I just seeing this through some peculiar VCS-warped glasses? I believe that much of the popularity of git stems f…

I've noticed this, oddly, while my workplace is transitioning to git from Mercurial.

A lot of developers using .NET tend to go for Mercurial because a while back it felt a lot nicer to use on Windows. It's why I always preferred using Mercurial. A few .NET shops that use TFP/VSO are moving towards Git for the Visual Studio support, but I've noticed a few Python and PHP developers making the switch to Mercurial.

To be honest, I rarely need to do anything more than the basics so neither has a huge benefit for me. Neither feels particularly faster than the other, and both have comparable GUI tools. Aside from when I am pushing stuff to GitHub I tend to use whichever one pops to my head first on a project. I reckon a lot of developers are probably the same.

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#47

Post by andyjohnson0 »

Skinney wrote: post #11
Aqwis wrote: 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?

I think it was due to the free version of bitkeeper (which the Linux kernel used for vcs) was taken off market. So the Linux devs would either have to pay for a DVCS or make their own... Several made their own, Git was chosen for the kernel, alot of people found uses for the others. I could be wrong, but I think that's the case.

There never was a free version.

BitMoover Inc provided free BitKeeper licences to the Linux kernel devs. This was unpopular because of the non-FOSS nature of Bitkeeper. Andrew Tridgell [1] at OSDL became frustrated with some aspects of the software and reverse-engineered its network protocol to develop his own limited client. This caused BitMoover to revoke the licences used by OSDL, which in turn provoked Linus Torvalds (who was at OSDL) to develop the early version of Git. [2]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Tridgell

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitKeeper#Pricing_change

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#48

Post by bachback »

tobiasu wrote: post #34
bachback wrote: post #28

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 ;-)

haha. I've actually spend time trying to read emacs's source code. I guess the downvoters haven't.

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#49

Post by dustinupdyke »

EnderMB wrote: post #46
mikro2nd wrote: post #41

>git won the mindshare war. I regret this - I would have preferred Mercurial, but it too is not looking real healthy these days I confess that my perception of Mercurial is the diametric opposite of the author's. Recently I believe I have seen a modest resurgence of interest in Hg and increased uptake. Am I just seeing this through some peculiar VCS-warped glasses? I believe that much of the popularity of git stems f…

I've noticed this, oddly, while my workplace is transitioning to git from Mercurial. A lot of developers using .NET tend to go for Mercurial because a while back it felt a lot nicer to use on Windows. It's why I always preferred using Mercurial. A few .NET shops that use TFP/VSO are moving towards Git for the Visual Studio support, but I've noticed a few Python and PHP developers making the switch to Mercurial. To be…

It seems that most .NET devs prefer something baked straight into Visual Studio and my experience has been that this is part of the problem in getting those teams to migrate to Git, which is most powerful from the command line.

Personally, I greatly prefer my source control system to be separate from my development environment or IDE.

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#50

Post by ElliotH »

bachback wrote: post #28

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.

Emacs has a package manager, it works fine. I particularly like that I can script it to install my packages on first run.
Post reply on HN