|
From: | Jan Djärv |
Subject: | Re: Locks on the Bzr repository |
Date: | Sat, 21 Aug 2010 12:30:44 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; sv-SE; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 |
Eli Zaretskii skrev 2010-08-21 11.08:
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 10:36:25 +0200 From: Jan Djärv<address@hidden> Cc: address@hidden Uday S Reddy skrev 2010-08-21 00.41:Seems to me that you are reinforcing Stephen's point. With bound branches, your branch is locked up until the commit goes through. You can't do anything while you have uncommitted changes in your source. With unbound branches, we can continue working on the source even when push is running in the background, because the source tree doesn't have any uncommitted changes. We can also give up on the push if necessary and continue committing to the branch. The advantage seems quite clear to me.You are ignoring the fact that work usually doesn't happen in the bound branch, but in a separate task branch. We can continue to work there while the bound branch commits.Actually, I see no reason not to continue working even in the bound branch that is being committed. There's nothing at all to prevent that, since Bazaar takes note of the files it commits and their contents _before_ it sends changes upstream. That is why you cannot make changes after launching "bzr ci" and hope for them to be included in the changeset. (This is unlike CVS, where you could make changes as long as the particular file wasn't sent upstream by "cvs ci".)
This is correct. However any bzr operation like a simple C-x v = fails because bzr is locked by the commit (it doesn't seem to do read-only locks). That is the main disadvantage that makes me go back to the task branch.
Jan D.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |