On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:06:45 -0500 Barry Warsaw firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I find bazaar's model confusing, and hg's intuitive, just like Ã‰ric. And consider that I learned bazaar before mercurial. To me, it makes perfect sense that in a DVCS the "unit" is a directory containing a repository and a working copy, and that the repository is *the* repository. That is, it has everything related to the project in it, just like the master SVN repository does (plus, since it is a DVCS, whatever I've committed locally but not pushed to the master). To have a repository that only has some of the stuff in it is, IMO, confusing. I advocated for having all the Python history in one repo partly for that reason.
I would feel better about Mercurial's if the repo where not intimately tied with a default working tree (yes, I know -U). In a sense, that's what Bazaar's shared repositories are: a place where all your history goes. In Bazaar's model though, it's not tied to a specific working tree, and it's hidden in a dot-directory.
Often (but not always), when you're wanting to do something, there's an extension for Mercurial which can be enabled ;) http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/ShareExtension