Unfortunately, I did not get enough input to decide which of the tools to go with. But I’m going to try git on my next project. Perhaps I’ll try bzr on the project after that to compare for myself.

Sorry – no I can’t. It is an impression I had from using bzr several months ago, and appeared to be confirmed by comments I saw elsewhere on the matter. You are right about the DAG. I am not as sure how equivalent the tools are in how various parts of the DAG are moved around, i.e. after a merge, does the full history of each side end up in all future “pulls”? Unfortunately I don’t expect to have time to research and report on that in detail soon either, I’ve had to restrict my work with these tools to mostly one-at-a-time.

I might loop back around and try out bzr again after 1.0; however, I have come to prefer git’s support for many-branches-per-repo/workspace, over the one-branch-per-repo/workspace approach, even when the latter is made space-efficient by nested a bunch of them inside a shared repo.

Could you pleas elaborate this, less effectively in what way? History in bzr is represented by a DAG, which is exactly the same model as in git, and similar to monotone and mercurial (which use a DAG as well, but with max. two parents per node/merge).