Re: VCS comparison table

There _are_ terminology conflicts. For example bzr "branch" is roughly
equivalent to one-branch git "repository";

Agreed.

bzr "repository" is just
collection of branches sharing common storage,

Agreed

which is similar to set
of git "repositories" with .git/objects/ linked to common object
repository (storage area) or appropriately set alternates file
(although that is not common usage in git, and for example you would
have to be carefull with running git-prune); bzr "lightweight checkout"
is equivalent to nonexistent "lazy clone"/"remote alternates" discussed
on git mailing list but not implemented because of performance
concerns; bzr "normal checkout" is I think similar to git "shared
clone" (but shared clone is limited to repositories on the same
filesystem); bzr "heavyweight checkout" is roughly equivalent to
one-branch-only "clone" in git or cg (cg = Cogito).

This is wrong. There are two kinds of checkouts
lightweight.. and "normal/heavyweight".

I think you are getting this alittle wrong, and I think the reason is
that you are thinking of repositories, while in bzr you normally think
of branches.

For example, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that if I have a git
repository of a upstream linux-repo (Linus' for example).  I guess
I'll use "pull" to keep my copy up to date with the upstream repo? If
I then would like to hack something special, I would "clone" the repo
and get a new repo and that's where I do my work.  Is that correct?

In bzr you never (well...)  clone a full repository, but you clone one
line-of-development (a branch).  So "bzr branch"  is always a
"one-branch-only "clone" in git or cg".

"bzr checkout" is a "bzr branch" followed by a setting saying
"whenever you commit here, commit in the master branch also".

"bzr checkout --lightweight" is a way to get only a snapshot of the
working tree out of a branch. Whenever you commit, it's done in the
remote branch.

/Erik