On Wed, 2004-12-15 at 22:23 -0500, Clint Adams wrote: > > What is baz? Some quick web searches didn't really turn anything up. > > I believe that it is the binary name of the software described at > http://bazaar.canonical.com/ . I've never used it. Yup. > larch was the original implementation of Arch, thusly named because > there's already an 'arch' binary present on most systems. It was a > shell script and some C programs reimplementing FTP and whatnot. I've > never used it. larch is a) known buggy, b) not supported upstream, c) superseded - tla (& anything branched from it) is a superset of larch functionality. > > I'm not too familiar arch, and any offshoots. So if tla, larch, and > > baz are all different flavors of arch, it would make sense to somehow > > combine then. If there are a bunch of flavors of this tool, it would > > be nice if someone could give a good pointer. They are roughly the same, but there are some key differences - for starters the UI's are quite different, and that gap is growing as we overhaul the UI in baz. There may be model changes in the future - though we do want to minimise those. I'm quite happy if the completions are merged... but baz is a moving target (monthly releases...). > It looks as though baz is diverging from tla in terms of UI as well as > archive format. ArX ( http://www.nongnu.org/arx/ ), which I have also > never used, is a fork of tla that I believe is completely incompatible > by this point. I believe that there have been other Arch forks and > reimplementations, but I can't think of any of their names. Bazaar has a very strong UI focus, but is also has a custom archive format that we hope will enable greater flexability in time. We are talking with upstream (tla) in the hopes that they will adopt what we do (or a lookalike :)). Cheers, Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part