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

21–30 of 317 posts

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#21

Post by sergiosgc »

icebraining wrote: post #6
rjzzleep wrote: post #5

the most annoying thing about bzr in my opinion is it's stupid branching model. luckily a migration to git is a oneliner. git init ; bzr fast-export --plain | git fast-import

luckily a migration to git is a oneliner. I wish. Unfortunately, not all repos we use are owned by us, and using two VCSs is worse than sticking with bzr.

Isn't it possible to track the upstream just like with svn? We use git internally but interact with third party subversion repositories. We do it by dedicating a branch to tracking the svn repo, use git-svn to branch and to push the commits (after rebasing). It's not perfect but after a few hurdles at the beginning it is now problem free.

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#22

Post by baq »

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?

people need just one DVCS. it was slow and when it finally got fast, it didn't matter, because everybody was happily using the alternatives.

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#23

Post by mickeyp »

mateuszf wrote: post #17
crncosta wrote: post #7

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

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

An unpalatable command line that has no linear mapping between commands and its arguments and what you want to do.

It's a great tool, no doubt; but the user interface is terrible. I use Magit for Emacs which has eliminated my need for the git command line.

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#25

Post by sillysaurus2 »

gizmogwai wrote: post #15
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?

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.

All of them emerged due to the end of license agreement for a free license of bitkeeper for the linux kernel.

Bet bitkeeper regretted that decision...

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#26

Post by jwr »

gizmogwai wrote: post #15
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?

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.

I'd say git is popular not just because of Linus, but also because it is oriented towards "just getting stuff done", rather than towards theoretical concepts.

You can rewrite history, fix your mistakes, and generally do whatever you want. When merging, git isn't picky, either: if the code looks the same, it is the same.

In-place branching is hugely useful, just switch your tree in an instant (your editor should update the contents of your files automatically). So is the stash. Overall, it's just a useful tool that doesn't try to teach you "how things should theoretically be done", and never says "well in order to get X, you should have done this a long time ago".

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#27

Post by __david__ »

stiff wrote: post #18

FWIW, just a few days ago I was browsing through the Emacs Bzr repository - after a full bzr clone, that took ridiculously long as well, a simple bzr blame takes 40-60 seconds to execute locally, and I have an SSD drive, four-core intel i7 and 8GB of RAM. I have never seen this kind of slowness with Git, with any repository size.

Oh yeah, doing anything with bzr and Emacs is just painful. For fun, check your CPU usage while your doing that bzr blame. I did one recently and it pegs at 100% for the whole time. Git is way more efficient.

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#28

Post by bachback »

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.

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#30

Post by __david__ »

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?

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 by being related to them).
Post reply on HN