Checkouts? Or just light bound branches?

[Jan Hudec]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 14:29:07 -0500, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> Hi Jan,
> 
> I think you're misreading me.  When I talk about checkouts below, I'm
> referring to the concept of working-tree-plus-last-revision, not
> bound-branch-with-shared-repository.

We seem to be talking past each other.

There are two ways to do 'checkouts':
 1. Add concept of current revision to working tree.
 2. Use a bound branch to put that concept in.

You are talking about the first one. That's the original idea.

The second is what I understood from the original post -- your post. So if
that is correct, than all should be well.

> Jan Hudec wrote:
> > The last-revision can't be separate when they are one!
> > 
> > Definition:
> > Checkout = Bound branch with working tree and dislocated storage
> > (sharing storage with the branch it is bound to).
> 
> No, that's not the definition I'm using in this email.  See above.
> 9
> >>I mean that bound branches are produced with 'bzr branch --bind', while
> >>checkouts are produced with 'bzr checkout'.  I mean that you can't
> >>unbind a checkout.  It's been suggested that bound branches are updated
> >>with 'bzr update', but how do you update a checkout, then?  It gets
> >>complicated for a checkout of a bound branch.  Do you always update both?
> > 
> > 
> > Under the proposal there is no both. 'bzr checkout' is an alias for
> > 'bzr branch --bind --share-storage'. 
> 
> Again, I'm *comparing* my proposal to the original idea for checkouts.
> 
> Under my proposal, "checkout of a bound branch" translates to "bound
> branch using the repository of the bound branch, which is, in turn, a
> bound branch."
> 
> So yes, there still is "both".
> 
> >>I'm not sure the offline distinction is going to be very relevent.  I
> >>think the recommended case for (checkouts/light bound branches) will be
> >>that the repository is on the same host, anyhow, because even LANs
> >>aren't as fast as local storage.  Either that, or we cache.
> > 
> > 
> > Well, I think that they would likely share storage when the parent is local
> > (and thus it'd be a "checkout"), while if the parent is remote, it would copy
> > the data (and thus it'd be a "bound branch"). There is no other difference
> > between the two things.
> 
> Instead of having a direct remote parent, I expect it to be common to
> have a repository branch with a remote parent, and to have a local
> light-bound-branch whose parent is the local repository branch.
> 
> 
> >>I don't see how you get away from having to verify both the checkout's
> >>last-revision and the branch's last revision, e.g. when you have a
> >>checkout of a bound branch.
> > 
> > 
> > It's not a checkout of a bound branch. It is that checkout IS a bound branch.
> 
> That's not what I'm discussing.  I'm discussing checkouts.
> 
> Aaron
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iD8DBQFD2nSC0F+nu1YWqI0RAsH6AJwOdq9tenYZL57aWZZxMqDBBfPNdwCeLfoi
> kkvpE6UDFbgFA6yYLq6f5sI=
> =JFLO
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
-- 
						 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb at ucw.cz>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060127/5a296fe0/attachment.pgp