Bazaar Version Control System Forked As Breezy

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Bazaar Version Control System Forked As Breezy

While the developers acknowledge modern open-source projects should be using Git as their distributed revision control system, if you find yourself still using GNU Bazaar there is now a fork known as Breezy...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=GNU-Bazaar-Breezy

[Pajn]

Bazaar was a great VCS but with the development of git the last years to make it easier to use I can't really see why you wouldn't choose git over any other VCS.

[lucrus]

I can't really see why you wouldn't choose git

No reason not to choose it, if you have the choice. However I'm happy Breezy exists because I still have one big project on Bazaar and moving it to Git is more work than it's worth.

[johanb]

Bazaar was forked rather than contributing to upstream since Canonical requires a Contributor License Agreement (CLA) in contributing patches and the Breezy fork gives them more free control to make changes.

That's just sad, does anyone know the specifics on what their criticisms of this CLA is?
Didn't know Canonical had one for submitting patches for their upstream projects.

[Luke_Wolf]

That's just sad, does anyone know the specifics on what their criticisms of this CLA is?
Didn't know Canonical had one for submitting patches for their upstream projects.

Let's put it this way, the Canonical CLA is why Red Hat created systemd rather than fixing upstart. Pretty much all of the Canonical projects have been dead ends because they insist on having that level of control over the software, and not being good community partners.

[Michael_S]

Let's put it this way, the Canonical CLA is why Red Hat created systemd rather than fixing upstart. Pretty much all of the Canonical projects have been dead ends because they insist on having that level of control over the software, and not being good community partners.

Poettering considered upstart an improvement over Sysv init but he still thought it had several key design gaps. That's why systemd was started.

I'm not defending the Canonical CLA, mind you. I'm just saying in this particular case Red Hat developers would have started over anyway.

[finalzone]

Poettering considered upstart an improvement over Sysv init but he still thought it had several key design gaps. That's why systemd was started.

I'm not defending the Canonical CLA, mind you. I'm just saying in this particular case Red Hat developers would have started over anyway.

Actually upstart would be redesigned as the original creator Scott Renmant along both Pottering and Sievers pointed out the flaw . Canonical was unwilling to cooperate and remove its CLA as legal obstacle. Systemd is what upstart was meant to be without Canonical's stubbornness.

[Cyber Killer]

Good that someone has stepped up to take care of Bazaar, which is still my favorite VCS. I can't stand the strange workflow of git, the constant adding of files (all other VCSes add files if they are new, then it's not necessary to add them again with each commit), the inability to do easy reverts or cleanup of the tree. And most of all, the lack of good GUI tools.

With Bazaar being nonworking since several months on OpenSUSE, I found my private development efforts dead, so I was looking towards Mercurial. It would be ok, but there's the same problem of lack of good GUI. Bazaar Explorer is the best.

[STiAT]

As long as Ubuntu still uses bzr, updated python, bugfixes and more plugins for those who use it can just be a good thing.

I certainly prefer git over bzr, and was like "why the hell fork bazaar which is dead", but considering the above and that bazaar has a CLA it makes sense.

[unixfan2001]

I can't stand the strange workflow of git, the constant adding of files (all other VCSes add files if they are new, then it's not necessary to add them again with each commit)

If git did that by default, I'd not be using git! That would be insanely inconvenient for anyone used to working on several change sets simultaneously.
If I have a small UI change and then decide I want to fix a bug someplace else, I don't want my UI changes automatically added to the commit flow for the bugfix!

the inability to do easy reverts

Huh? git reset --hard <targetSHA> is fairly straightforward. Or use git revert for documented reverts.
git reflog even gives you the power to do reverts in both directions (i e reverting a revert)

or cleanup of the tree.

What do you mean by cleanup? Removing untracked files in the working tree? That's what git clean is for. git clean -fd takes care of all your troubles.
git gc helps you prune your repository.

And most of all, the lack of good GUI tools.

Ummm. What? git probably got more GUI tools than any other VCS, including ports of SVN and Mercurial tools. Surely there's one good enough for you (NVM that the terminal is far more efficient)