Centralized Storage, round 2

[Aaron Bentley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Robert Collins wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 11:27 -0400, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>Finally, they retain the ability for remote users to download a branch
>>>>using just one location.
>>>
>>>
>>>Rob Weirs branch has this ability too.
>>
>>Well, kinda-sorta.  You have one location, and it refers to another
>>location.  In mine, you really have just one location:
>>http://bazaar-ng.org/central-store/bzr.dev
> 
> 
> And something in the tree refers to it. 

Eh?

What I'm proposing is there's no tree.  Not for the remote user.  All
the data they need to reproduce the branch (aside from uncommitted
changes) is in the central store.

>>I am assuming the case where the user wants to share their data.  The
>>other case isn't interesting.
>>
>>So to reiterate:  If the branch data is stored in the woking tree, AND
>>THE USER WANTS TO SHARE IT, both the centralized store and the working
>>tree must be publicly accessible.  The working tree mist refer to the
>>centralized store using a relative path, so that the same path is
>>applicable locally and remotely.
> 
> 
> Why? Is this because you are thinking 'rsync to publish' ?

No, rsync has nothing to do with it.

> I don't see
> ANY REQUIREMENT for local and remote copies to have the SAME CENTRAL
> store.

Sure.

What I'm talking about is when a user wants to share the branch that
they have on their machine, not a remote mirror.  I used to do this with
Arch development.  Every time I committed, it was automatically on the
web.  Then I decided I didn't want people hitting my machine, so I
started using sourcecontrol instead.

At work I still do this.  My coworker reads from the archive I commit
to.  I read from the one he commits to.  Both locations are
automatically backed up, without so much as an archive-mirror command.

> I'm about 95% positive this is a disconnect between us here.

Clearer?


>>This is what I understood from our discussion.  How do you propose to
>>publish branches seamlessly in Weir's model?
> 
> 
> 'bzr push'

That's an extra step that isn't always needed.  I want publish-by-commit
to be possible.

>>No, I think it makes it harder to delete a working tree's
>>revision-history by mistake.  Yes, if you delete your central store, you
>>lose everything.  But what good is a revision-history if you've deleted
>>your store?
> 
> 
> I was referring to someone cleaning up their 'central branches' so that
> they can reuse a branch name, and the resulting chaos that would cause.

Hmm.  Yeah, that's a possible issue.  I think it depends what we expect
people to think they're doing when they set the branch up to use central
storage.

> Well, the combinations I know about are:
> my local config:
> ~/central-store is the store
> branch A has a store-location of /home/robertc/central-store and a
> x-pull location of 'sftp://server/home/robertc/public_html/mybranch
> 
> my published config:
> sftp://server/home/robertc/public_html/bzr is the store
> sftp://server/home/robertc/public_html/mybranch is a branch with a
> store-location of '../bzr'
> http://server/~robertc/mybranch is where I tell other people to pull
> from.

> Thats about as complex as I can imagine users encountering, it has
> single documentroot.

So what about the case where the local config is the published config?
~/central-store is unlikely to be a useful http URL.

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDJbY/0F+nu1YWqI0RAr98AJ9sn3JGX8Y0iOYkYQDGz+xcxEIE3gCfXwCh
mxDE3foSdPOuCWLTw0smRAI=
=DelA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----