archives & nested trees

[John A Meinel]

Robert Collins wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 16:48 -0600, John A Meinel wrote:
>> Robert Collins wrote:
>>> It occurs to me that one common use of nested-by-reference trees, and
>>> archives, will be to have a common library in the same archive as
>>> several users. If the interpretation of .bzr-child-locations was
>>> performed relative to the branch, not the working dir, then paths
>>> like ../../libs/libfoo would allow references inside the same archive,
>>> and avoid some need to provide absolute urls.
>>>
>>> John - what do you think?
>> I definitely think that there will be cases of using a shared library in
>> an archive. And it would be nice to be able to reference the sibling
>> branch that way.
>> However, I think you could still reference the sibling branch by
>> absolute path, and other people would be able to get it, and it means
>> that it would work without archives.
> 
> Of course, I'm not saying 'remove absolute references'. I'm saying
> 'resolve relative references w.r.t. the branch location'. This works
> fine without archives too.
> ...
>> I'm not sure how to solve it, such that we give equal value to both
>> standalone branches and archives.
>> It might be best if references in child-locations can be either absolute
>> or relative. In a standalone branch, they must be absolute, in an
>> archive, they can be relative to the root of the archive.
> 
> I think relative is fine in both.

Well, I was thinking to make them relative to the archive root, so it is
easier to introduce namespaces again. Having them relative to the branch
location works okay, and would certainly allow shared branches to be
grouped almost the same as a standard archive.

John
=:->

> 
> Rob
> 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20051115/1373cd59/attachment.pgp