Re: arch, svn, cvs
On 8/31/05, Robert Collins <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> for the record, to avoid other folk getting confused - bzr isn't a
> 'patch orientated SCM'. bzr's design incorporates elements from all of
> the VCS systems around when the project was started (and updated since
> then) - its not derived from GNU Arch any more or less than its derived
> from monotone or subversion.
Fair enough... except that it is being promised as the natural upgrade
path for tla/baz users. I don't claim to understand the architectural
decisions in bzr, but it is a pretty serious constraint. It forces bzr
to support the core assumptions of the Arch model.