Re: Locks on the Bzr repository

[Uday S Reddy]

On 8/21/2010 2:45 PM, Óscar Fuentes wrote:

> Not really (for the workflow advertised by Stephen and Karl.)

"Stephen" is Stephen Turnbull?  But he is arguing for unbound branches now.

> At the time (and possibly still now) rebasing was not the soundest part
> of bzr. So the remaining workflows were "merge+push" and
> "pull". "merge+push" have the serious inconveniences described on my
> other post on this thread. So Stephen went for the remaining one:
> "pull", which is simulated with bound branches. When a developer does
> "merge+commit" on his local branch bound to upstream, it is the
> equivalent of `pull' on the remote branch.

Thank you very much.  This makes perfect sense.  If you don't trust rebase, and 
there are good reasons not to, then the current workflow is probably the best 
way of doing things.  And, given the workflow, bound branches serve the purpose 
perfectly fine.  I get it now.

Given the situation, moving to git would seem like a good idea, because its 
rebase is trustworthy and should improve matters enormously.

Cheers,
Uday