[Ffmpeg-devel] Re: Advocating periodic releases
Sat Oct 7 10:03:52 CEST 2006
On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 01:45:36AM +0200, Aurelien Jacobs wrote:
> > > main competitors of GIT are other distributed systems.
> > True. I should have mentioned other systems, such as Bitkeeper, Bazaar, TLA,
> > Svk, darcs, ...
> - Bitkeeper is closed-source
> - Bazaar and TLA are dead
Yep, I had Bazaar-NG in mind when mentioning Bazaar, as Bazaar itself seemed
nothing but a fork of Arch/TLA.
> - Svk don't seem very good (at least not very popular)
That was my problem with it too. And it looked a bit like a hack.
> - darcs is quite slow
> But you didn't mentionned the real GIT competitors, which are Bazaar-NG
> and Mercurial. Bazaar-NG seems to not be as mature and quite slower.
> But Mercurial has a very similar feature set. It is often slightly faster
> than GIT and slightly more storgage efficient. The biggest advantage
> of Mercurial over GIT is IMO it's better and simpler user interface.
Yep, in fact, I had just forgotten Mercurial in this e-mail, I had added them to
my homepage, and first fact :)
I remember being quite impressed with the Mercurial benchmarks and features
posted on the git/kernel mailinglist at the start of the git project. In fact,
as far as I can remember, Mercurial seemed to be a few steps a head both
performancewise and featurewise (to git). At that time though, it seemed git was
getting most users, which increased my trust in it (as bugs should be spotted
> For example, I don't want to mess with the repository internal. Why does
> git-repack exist ? It should just work without letting me know.
The idea behind it AFAIK is: You want it to be really fast, but you also
want to have a really good compressionratio. These things don't easily work
together :) So, the solution of git is: Don't do the time-consuming stuff
automatically, do it when the user decides he has time for it.
But I agree that it would have been preferable if it worked without depending on
a user to use the git-repack command. I'm gonna work around this by installing a
cronjob and nicing it.
> > But, some of them have not been used intensively enough for my liking. The only
> > two of them that have effectively been used on large projects AFAIK are
> > Bitkeeper and GIT. As Bitkeeper is closed-source and commercial software, the
> > choice was rather easy for me :)
> Probably because you didn't know about Mercurial ;-)
You're right :) I'd forgotten it for this e-mail at least :)
> It is used by some important projects such as Xen, alsa, v4l... It has
> been choosed by open solaris and is currently evaluated (with success)
> to handle the full tree of FreeBSD ports (much bigger than linux or
> other such projects).
Nice! I wasn't aware of that! I only knew about Xen, and I think I recall the
GCC people investigating both GIT and Mercurial, but I could be mistaken.
> Anyway, GIT and Mercurial are both very good, and when you are accustomed
> to them, you can't appreciate SVN anymore.
*Fully* agree on that. It makes working with sourcecode _a lot_ more efficient
With friendly regards,
More information about the ffmpeg-devel