Yes, bazaar deserves extra props because it's the scm powering a lot of the Ubuntu integration projects. It's open source (I think they pretty much all are) but its development is sponsored by Canonical, which is the company behind Ubuntu.<br>
<br>I can't remember why I ditched bazaar - I think it was because it didn't have an eclipse plugin, but I've since discovered that really doesn't matter with a decent scm.<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 28/01/2008, <b class="gmail_sendername">Jeremy Burks</b> <<a href="mailto:jeremy.burks@gmail.com">jeremy.burks@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
although i primarily use mercurial, bazaar (<a href="http://bazaar-vcs.org/">http://bazaar-vcs.org/</a>) is<br>also worth a mention<br><br>On Jan 27, 2008 4:42 PM, Chad Humphries <<a href="mailto:chad@theedgecase.com">chad@theedgecase.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> A good thing to note is that you can run many of the distributed scm tools<br>> in a 'svn wrapper' mode to ease transition with existing repositories. That<br>> made the switch much easier for me.<br>><br>
><br>> - Chad<br>><br>><br>> On Jan 27, 2008 5:00 PM, Dan North <<a href="mailto:tastapod@gmail.com">tastapod@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>><br>><br>> > I can see this descending into a mercurial vs git religious war :)<br>
> ><br>> > Hi Corey. I'm using mercurial for both home and work use (supplementing<br>> some of subversion's shortcomings, mainly around merging). I looked<br>> (briefly) at git and - less briefly - at darcs. I settled on mercurial for<br>
> purely non-scientific reasons. People whose opinions I respect are using it,<br>> the community seems both accommodating and active, and it's python which<br>> means it runs anywhere python lives, which is all of my home and work<br>
> environments.<br>> ><br>> > Others on this list - including the lovely David - are using git and<br>> having just as much fun and productivity, so I'm sure it comes down to a<br>> matter of taste in the end.<br>
> ><br>> > The big shift, though, is from centralised to distributed source control.<br>> This means that any working copy is also a full repository in its own right,<br>> so you can do everything you would usually need the server for: branching,<br>
> tagging, cloning, logging, checking in, rolling back, etc. This page<br>> (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/ykcs25">http://tinyurl.com/ykcs25</a>) from the Mercurial wiki gives a pretty good<br>> overview. The basic model will be the same for any of the distributed SCMs.<br>
> ><br>> > My experience so far is:<br>> ><br>> > git: insanely fast, made up of many shell scripts, big command set, does<br>> /BIG/ repositories (currently used for the entire linux kernel), doesn't run<br>
> on windows.<br>> > darcs: also fast, written in haskell so less "hackable". Has best<br>> cherry-picking support (choosing out-of-sequence changesets). Apparently<br>> doesn't do so well under biiig repositories.<br>
> > mercurial: also fast (seeing a pattern here?). Seems to scale well. Has<br>> (deliberately) svn/cvs-like command set where it can, so easy to adopt. This<br>> is where I've ended up.<br>> > monotone: the first distributed scm I came across (Dave Astels was using<br>
> it before any of the rest of us had heard of distributed scm). Never really<br>> used it much.<br>> ><br>> > At the end of the day it will be a personal preference. But whichever you<br>> end up with, my prediction is that you'll enjoy it much more than<br>
> subversion.<br>> ><br>> > Cheers,<br>> > Dan<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > On 27/01/2008, Corey Haines <<a href="mailto:coreyhaines@gmail.com">coreyhaines@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > > Hi, all,<br>> > ><br>> > > This isn't about rspec, but this list has people whose opinions I<br>> respect.<br>> > ><br>
> > > So, I'm looking for a new version control system for my local<br>> development. I was going to install subversion, but I've heard rumors of<br>> people using some newer ones. Thoughts? I'd like to be able to run it either<br>
> locally or on a home server. If I run it off a home server, then it needs to<br>> support offline access, so that I can use a cached version when I'm not on<br>> my home network. For simplicity's sake, running it locally is probably a<br>
> better solution.<br>> > ><br>> > > What do you all use?<br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > > -Corey<br>> > ><br>> > > --<br>> > > <a href="http://www.coreyhaines.com">http://www.coreyhaines.com</a><br>
> > > The Internet's Premiere source of information about Corey Haines<br>> > ><br>> > > _______________________________________________<br>> > > rspec-users mailing list<br>> > > <a href="mailto:rspec-users@rubyforge.org">rspec-users@rubyforge.org</a><br>
> > > <a href="http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users">http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users</a><br>> > ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > rspec-users mailing list<br>> > <a href="mailto:rspec-users@rubyforge.org">rspec-users@rubyforge.org</a><br>> > <a href="http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users">http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users</a><br>
> ><br>><br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> rspec-users mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:rspec-users@rubyforge.org">rspec-users@rubyforge.org</a><br>> <a href="http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users">http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users</a><br>
><br>_______________________________________________<br>rspec-users mailing list<br><a href="mailto:rspec-users@rubyforge.org">rspec-users@rubyforge.org</a><br><a href="http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users">http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br>