[jblack: Re: [tools-discuss] Evaluation notes on bzr-0.7]

[Robey Pointer]

On 1 Mar 2006, at 12:23, Aaron Bentley wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Robey Pointer wrote:
>>> One model that supports this is BitKeeper,  where
>>> you have to run 'bk edit' to edit each file.
>>
>>
>> Perforce uses the same model.  I've gotten used to it, but it's not
>> very convenient.
>
> I think that we can make it convenient.  For example, we can have an
> inotify daemon that runs 'bzr edit' on every file that we modify.
> Fundamentally, it doesn't make sense to me that we have to tell the  
> tool
> which files changed, because the OS must already know.

It just occurred to me that one way we could make this optional is:  
Once a branch has a list of files "open for editing" (ie you or a  
daemon has run 'bzr edit' on them), then you're in explicit mode.  If  
you never 'bzr edit' a file, everything is implicit as it is currently.

The idea of having a little daemon that uses inotify to mark files  
with 'bzr edit' is a very cool one.  That lets you edit a file and  
have bzr tag along after you.  With perforce, all checked-out files  
are mode u-w.  (On osx, they're also marked immutable!!)  So you have  
to ask *first* (via 'p4 edit'), *then* you can edit.  Irritating.

I think if I could start up a little daemon at login that would  
automatically track 'bzr edit's for me, I'd probably do it.

robey