Re: BitBucket: GPL-ed KitBeeper clone

[Martin J. Bligh]

>> I think it's possible to get 90% of the functionality that most of us
>> (or at least I) want without the distributed stuff.
> 
> No, I really don't think so.
> 
> The distribution is absolutely fundamental, and _the_ reason why I use BK.
> 
> Now, it's true that in 90% of all cases (probably closer to 99%) you will
> never see the really nasty cases Larry was talking about. People just
> don't rename files that much, and more importantly: then whey do, they
> very very seldom have anybody else doing the same.
> 
> But what are you going to do when it happens? Because it _does_ happen:  
> different people pick up the same patch or fix suggestion from the mailing
> list, and do that as just a small part of normal development. Are the 
> tools now going to break down?

I'm going to fix it by hand ;-) As long as it stops at a sensible point,
and clearly barfs and says what the problem is, that's fine by me.
 
> BK doesn't. That' skind of the point. Larry 

Right ... I appreciate that. I'd just rather fix things up by hand 1% of
the time than use Bitkeeper myself. I'm not trying to stop *you* using
Bitkeeper by any stretch of the imagination ... you probably need the
heavyweight tools, but I'm OK without them.

> This is FUNDAMENTAL.
> 
> And yes, maybe the really hard cases are rare. But does that mean that you 
> aren't going to do it?

Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm not saying this as good as bitkeeper,
I'm saying it's "good enough" for me and I suspect several others (not saying 
it's good enough for you), and significantly better than diff and patch.
(though cp -lR is *blindingly* fast, and diff understands hard links).

M.