Re: should we use bazaar?

On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 09:36 -0400, Martin C. Martin wrote:
[ . . . ]
> So you want to encourage people to check in code to a branch fairly
> often.  Mercurial is better at this than Git, Git makes code-hiding the
> standard way of operating.  e.g. "get rebase" destroys an entire line of
> history.  I don't know about bazzar.

What is it about Git that make you think this?

Rebase is an issue all on its own.  When using Git/Bazaar as an
intelligent interface to a Subversion store then rebase is absolutely
essential.  When working just in Bazaar or Git then rebase is probably
anathema except in one or two very special corner cases.

Mercurial has a very weird view of what constitutes a branch compared to
Git or Bazaar.  If it fits the workflow then fine, it is great, but...
I have to admit I am more in the Bazaar (and to extent Git) view of
branch.

> I haven't seen the "code-bomb" (large check in of low quality code) in
> Groovy much at all, so maybe this is a non-issue for us.  But then
> again, I haven't really been looking.

I think there has sometimes been a tendency to commit unreviewed
material that has come as a surprise to people, but I don't recollect
low quality code being committed.
--
Russel.
====================================================
Dr Russel Winder                 Partner

Concertant LLP                   t: +44 20 7585 2200, +44 20 7193 9203
41 Buckmaster Road,              f: +44 8700 516 084
London SW11 1EN, UK.             m: +44 7770 465 077