Branch for format 7

[Robert Collins]

On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 19:59 -0600, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 17:41 -0500, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> > 
> >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >>Robert Collins wrote:
> >>| When we start the split into checkout, branch and repository, I figure
> >>| we'll leave .bzr/branch-format behind with a value of (say) 9, and
> >>| introduce new format values for each of the other three elements.
> >>
> >>Once branch metadata is moved into a subdirectory, 'branch-format' isn't
> >>an accurate filename.  What do you think of 'meta-format'?
> > 
> > 
> > I'm worried about old clients giving confusing messages. I agree that
> > meta-format is a better name, and perhaps we should have both:
> > meta-format of 1 when we split
> > branch-format of $last-non-split + 1.
> > 
> > Then after a suitable delay, we remove the branch-format file.
> > 
> > Rob
> > 
> 
> So I'm guessing you are trying to make it so that if I'm in a
> 'checkout'-only directory, an old version of bzr would complain about
> 'unknown branch format ???', rather than not considering the working
> directory to be a branch (and possibly finding the branch in $HOME).

Yes. 

> If you are going to create a new file, is 'meta-format' really
> necessary. Since you would have '.bzr/checkout/format', and
> '.bzr/repository/format', and '.bzr/branch/format'.
> 
> It seems '.bzr/meta-format' is unnecessary. Though it might be easier to
> maintain forward compatibility.

Its necessary to have some format marker, so that if we change the logic
its not reduced to a heuristic.

Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060116/5584cfff/attachment.pgp