[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: bzr repository ready?

From: Óscar Fuentes
Subject: Re: bzr repository ready?
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:26:04 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux)

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:

> Óscar Fuentes writes:
>  > Stephen missed a word here.
> If you like.

>  > What he says is correct for a *lightweight* checkout. A normal
>  > checkout contains all the metadata, and in essence
> Please refer to the recent address@hidden archives.  "Checkout"
> in discussion there now means "lightweight checkout".

> It is true that as of v2.0.1, 'bzr help' still refers to "normal
> checkouts" (== bound branches) and --lightweight is required to get a
> lightweight checkout, but it is clear that the trend is bipolar:
> (unbound) branches for decentralized workflows, and (lightweight)
> checkouts for centralized workflows and special applications (like
> "build-only").  I think it's better to follow the modern terminology
> here on emacs-devel.

As you say, the terminology is redundant, and hence confusing. But as
people here will base his practice on the current bzr interface and help
files rather than on discussions on the bzr ml, IMHO it is more
appropriate to be consistent with that. People could be surprised when
they find that

bzr checkout

does not create what you call a checkout, but a bound branch.

Besides, bound branches are perfectly ok on a centralized workflow when
you are not on the local network (and thus bandwidth is not all that
great) which covers the typical FOSS project. Too often, the logic
behind the decisions of bzr's core developers does not seem very sound
to me. Is as if the project were on a permanent experimental phase,
where you can make an occassional blunder without dire consequences.


reply via email to

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