Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canonical's Bazaar Still In Stagnant State

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Ishayu View Post
    My problem is that I used to like this site but all I see on it nowadays is just Ubuntu bashing. Reporting on Mir and being critical is fine, but this article is basically pulling up something random, claiming all manner of BS about it, and using it as ammo against Canonical. Even if the whole Mir debacle is a mess - stick to that and shut up about Canonical if there are no news about it. Last I checked, this wasn't a bash Canonical blog, it was a free software and UNIX hardware blog and site, and I'd like to see it remain that way, thank you very much.

    Of course I can't dictate to him what he should do, but if he keeps this up I will be leaving, and that would make me sad because that's a good site out the window.
    See, I didnt see this as Ubuntu bashing. I actually saw this as making a point about Mir-- Canonical abandons and half-asses shit. They couldnt even keep up the development for the version control system that their entire distro is based around...thats not a great sign for Mir and everything else they are building from scratch.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Cyber Killer View Post
      There are 2 killer features to bzr for me:
      - the cli commands are similar to svn (easy to teach to anyone, cause everybody already knows svn) (ok, hg has this too, but look at point 2)
      - there is a neat, official GUI that is the same on all supported platforms

      Bazaar is one of the few things that Canonical has done right.
      Git is the first versioning system I have ever looked at. So in my case the first point is invalid, and will become increasingly so for others as time goes. And for the second, so does Git, git gui is standard at least between Linux and Windows.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
        Git is the first versioning system I have ever looked at. So in my case the first point is invalid, and will become increasingly so for others as time goes. And for the second, so does Git, git gui is standard at least between Linux and Windows.
        git-gui, the one written in tcl/tk? Thank you I'll pass, tried it some time ago and it was unusable.

        BTW: Bzr, hg and git are technically nearly the same. It all boils down to personal preferences, with an exception - git is popular because git is popular :-P.

        Comment


        • #34
          it's funny how git, mercurial and bazaar were all released in early 2005... what happened that year?
          anyway, in terms of adoption by third parties, git and hg came out on top.. it's probably the best course of action now not to support bazaar actively.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Cyber Killer View Post
            git-gui, the one written in tcl/tk? Thank you I'll pass, tried it some time ago and it was unusable.
            It's not pretty, but I find it quite usable.

            Comment


            • #36
              I used to use svn, but never really liked the workflow. Git just seems more "natural", for a lack of a better word. Git is also very easy to use once you get the hang of it, and there's github for git repos (which is also easy to use and set up).

              I think I tried Bazaar once, but don't really have an opinion about it.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Kano View Post
                From the main oss projects out there it seems only grub uses bzr.
                You forget MySQL (and its derivatives like MariaDB, Percona, etc.).

                Comment


                • #38
                  1. I agree with Ishayahu about this seeming more like a "bash Canonical" post than anything else.
                  2. git was the first thing I used, and so far I haven't seen any reason to rely on anything else...
                  At the university I went to, it was the primary VCS in use (I didn't major in CS, but I was a member of the university LUG).
                  You can build a Linux system from scratch using almost exclusively git repositories (linux, some libcs, the sourceware mirrors, busybox,...even X is in git).
                  And git isn't linux-only; in fact MS recently released a Visual Studio plugin for using git, and Dragonfly BSD uses git, and a bit of the other BSD work is done in git.
                  The big reason for using git that I'm aware of is its speed.

                  I do use Mercurial for following a couple projects (toybox and OSS4). And it seems almost as good, but there are a few areas that seem rather rough to a git user.
                  The projects I actually work on are too small to notice speed differences, but hg is slower (perhaps because it's python?)
                  Bazaar does offer a git bridge, fwiw. But I'm not going to switch, since:
                  1) Bazaar is GPL3 (as is all Canonical's software)--never mind why I consider that an issue
                  2) It has more dependencies (in terms of building)
                  3) It's slower
                  4) It's not the VCS that I use for everything else

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by erendorn View Post
                    it's funny how git, mercurial and bazaar were all released in early 2005... what happened that year?
                    Andrew Tridgell pissed Larry McVoy off which caused him to change the license to BitKeeper. Linus wrote git, hg and bzr were "ooh ooh me too" projects.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
                      Andrew Tridgell pissed Larry McVoy off which caused him to change the license to BitKeeper. Linus wrote git, hg and bzr were "ooh ooh me too" projects.
                      Which caused BitKeeper to immediately become irrelevant and fall into obsoleteness.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
                        Andrew Tridgell pissed Larry McVoy off which caused him to change the license to BitKeeper. Linus wrote git, hg and bzr were "ooh ooh me too" projects.
                        Not very accurate. Git and hg were started in parallel roughly round the same time but the ui. especially for git during that time was very raw and bzr was supposed to solve that problem but it has been held back by the slowness and other issues

                        http://stationary-traveller.eu/pages...ospective.html

                        It does appear that Canonical has stopped funding launchpad and bzr (and not because the projects are "done") but I don't fault them for it. They have invested considerably in both and neither have turned out to be the grand success they envisioned.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                          Which caused BitKeeper to immediately become irrelevant and fall into obsoleteness.
                          Heh, that reminds me of XFree86...
                          Though it doesn't seem like BitKeeper was ever that popular to begin with.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by uid313
                            Which caused BitKeeper to immediately become irrelevant and fall into obsoleteness.
                            Which explains why the company is still in business. Turns out BitKeeper has features that git, hg, and bzr don't have, like the ability to lock a file for editing, which is important in large projects.

                            Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
                            Not very accurate.
                            Bzr was actually the development branch of arch, the gnu dvcs that no one used. That's the only part of my post that wasn't accurate. Anyway, bzr is part of gnu, so why aren't they maintaining it?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Anarchy View Post
                              For a stagnant project bazaar is quite stable. And for the record because it has simple interface, is stable and cross-platform it's quite popular among scientists. Although nowadays git and mercurial are also getting quite popular in the community.

                              Oh, yeah, it's great. Just don't try to use it with large projects. It doesn't seem to write out to disk until it has pulled all changes. Simply impossible to sync with a project that has more than xMB worth of changes on a system with less than xMB.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
                                Bzr was actually the development branch of arch, the gnu dvcs that no one used. That's the only part of my post that wasn't accurate. Anyway, bzr is part of gnu, so why aren't they maintaining it?
                                Mercurial wasn't a "me too" project. It was started just around the time git was written.

                                Also you are talking about the original Bazaar project. Bzr was written from scratch.

                                There is no separate team for GNU projects ready to take over maintenance when they are abandoned. It is all just the originals developes chosing to do their work under the GNU governance. It is the same with Apache or whatever else.
                                Last edited by RahulSundaram; 03-16-2013, 10:01 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X