[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bzr repository ready?
From: |
Stephen J. Turnbull |
Subject: |
Re: bzr repository ready? |
Date: |
Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:35:47 +0900 |
Stefan Monnier writes:
> I think we should only consider setups that are close to what was done
> with CVS. After that, people can read the Bzr docs to figure out what's
> best for them.
FSVO "close to CVS." Specifically, I *strongly recommend* that all
workflows recommended to core developers start by creating a local
repo (try that in CVS! :-). Questions for those who have actually
used bzr on the emacs repo (for the moment, I'm not interested in
GPLv3 code but we're working on that :-):
1. Jason's suggestion of "bzr init-repo --no-trees -2a" sounds like a
good idea to me for performance reasons. Is this going to be
entirely superseded by the "wget; tar x" workflow?
N.B. Many projects that convert to dVCS start to proliferate
"sandbox" branches, cf. http://code.launchpad.net/mailman/ or
http://git.kernel.org/. I *think* that if the same base URL is
used to host such sandbox branches, it won't cause any problems
for the "wget; tar x" workflow" (you just do tar c only on the
"emacs" trunk branch). I think it's worth planning for that
possibility in structuring the Emacs Bazaar repository.
2. I think that all core developer workflows we recommend *at this
point in time in the wiki page* should start with "bzr branch
trunk" (not usual in CVS but I think the rest of the workflow is
reasonably close to CVS). I recommend exactly two variants:
a. A generic "dev" branch for small one-off fixes. I recommend
the branch name "quickfixes" or something like that instead,
to more precisely indicate the purpose of the branch.
I would do this kind of work directly on a trunk checkout in
CVS.
b. Feature branches for any work that might involve concurrent
commits in other branches you're working on locally, or might
span several updates from upstream.
I would do long-running tasks with many commits on a branch in
CVS, while relatively short tasks (which nevertheless span
multiple updates from upstream for whatever reason) would be
done in the trunk checkout. The latter half I consider
suboptimal though, and I hope people transitioning from CVS
would find it as natural as I do to crank the threshold for
feature branches way down.
3. How do people organize their branches (bound or not) and
(lightweight) checkouts? Eg, for my desultory work on GNU
Mailman, I have
Mailman -+- 3.0 # all toplevel branches are mirrors
| # and are configured treeless
+- 2.2 # defunct
|
+- 2.1
|
+- work -+- 3.0 # all local branches and checkouts
| # will be placed under work/
| # work is an ordinary directory
| # 3.0 is also registered on Launchpad[1]
+- lilfix # these are both branches; "lilfix"
# is a historical relic, I think
# "quickfixes" is a better generic
# recommendation
Footnotes:
[1] I don't know if "registering a branch" has a corresponding
feature on Savannah, but I thought I should mention this fact.
- Re: bzr repository ready?, (continued)
- Re: bzr repository ready?, Glenn Morris, 2009/11/21
- Re: bzr repository ready?, Karl Fogel, 2009/11/22
- Re: bzr repository ready?, Óscar Fuentes, 2009/11/22
- Re: bzr repository ready?, Eli Zaretskii, 2009/11/22
- Re: bzr repository ready?, Óscar Fuentes, 2009/11/23
- Re: bzr repository ready?, Stefan Monnier, 2009/11/23
- Re: bzr repository ready?,
Stephen J. Turnbull <=
- Re: bzr repository ready?, Stefan Monnier, 2009/11/23
- Re: bzr repository ready?, Óscar Fuentes, 2009/11/23
- Re: bzr repository ready?, Stefan Monnier, 2009/11/23
- Re: bzr repository ready?, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2009/11/23
- Re: bzr repository ready?, Eli Zaretskii, 2009/11/23
- Re: bzr repository ready?, Andreas Schwab, 2009/11/23
- Re: bzr repository ready?, Stefan Monnier, 2009/11/23
- Re: bzr repository ready?, Richard Stallman, 2009/11/24
- Re: bzr repository ready?, Karl Fogel, 2009/11/25
- Re: bzr repository ready?, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2009/11/25