[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Bzr switch

From: Karl Fogel
Subject: Re: Bzr switch
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:26:33 -0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux)

Daniel Clemente <address@hidden> writes:
>   What will happen when older clients try to connect?
>   Even if they are asked to upgrade to 1.16, this may be a good
>   thing. (Upgrading is as easy as: bzr branch lp:bzr; cd bzr; ./bzr).

I don't know if they get a nice error telling them to upgrade, or a
not-so-nice error.  I suspect the former, but haven't tested it yet.
The solution is the same either way: upgrade to 1.16.1 or higher.

For our purposes, we should just publish that pulling Emacs requires
Bazaar >= 1.16.1 and tell people to upgrade if necessary.  1.17 will be
out very soon, so that will probably be what we recommend, actually.

(Jason and Andreas, if you want to make a new testing branch now using
the "--2a" format, that would be great...)

>   Nice to see some dates.
>   Some questions from the links I found in [1] :
> - The Savannah ticket about this is still open: [2] Is Savannah
>   officially ready?

I think Savannah will need to upgrade Bazaar to get loggerhead
(web-viewing) support for the new branch format.

> - There seem to be still open Bazaar bugs/improvements with the tag
> emacs-adoption: [3]. Are they blocking?

None of those look like blockers to me.

> I saw that some Bazaar bugs which affected Emacs were solved due to
> your work; thanks.

Well, I can't take credit for the coding (except for one bug), but on
behalf of the real Bazaar developers: you're welcome! :-)

Stefan Monnier writes:
> Actually, I don't have a preference for that format.  If I had
> a preference it'd be for the 1.9 format.

I strongly recommend the new format.  It is faster and smaller, in ways
that will make a difference for a large, deep-history project like Emacs.
In particular, 'log -v' times are faster, though I wish they were faster

> But before we can switch over we still need a test repository set up on
> Savannh so we can make sure that Savannah is working correctly
> (including loggerhead, the commit mailing-list, ...).

Yes.  Again, I'd like to just give Bazaar 1.16.1 a couple of weeks more
testing -- I don't want to ask the Savannah admins to upgrade only to
have to ask them to do it again shortly afterwards.  I'm keeping an eye
on our Bazaar testing (for the Launchpad.net open-sourcing), and will
come back and ping the Savannah admins very soon.

No objection to starting testing earlier, of course!  Just in terms of
my own schedule, and a desire to avoid doing work twice, I'm planning to
wait a couple of weeks before making any noises at Savannah.  If anyone
wants to take this and run with it sooner, though, I'm all in favor.

However, we can start testing a branch by itself before then.  (See
above note to Jason and Andreas.)


The references from Daniel Clemente's mail:
> [1] http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/EmacsBzrSwitchover
> [2] http://savannah.gnu.org/support/index.php?106612
> [3] 
> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/bzr/+bugs?field.searchtext=&orderby=-importance&assignee_option=any&field.assignee=&field.bug_reporter=&field.bug_supervisor=&field.bug_commenter=&field.subscriber=&field.omit_dupes.used=&field.omit_dupes=on&field.has_patch.used=&field.has_cve.used=&field.tag=emacs-adoption&field.tags_combinator=ANY&search=Search

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]