[RFC] move revision-history from branch to shared repo

James Blackwell jblack at merconline.com
Mon Mar 20 07:30:50 GMT 2006


On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 01:06:18AM -0500, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> James Blackwell wrote:
> | I'm kind of curious. What is the general opinion of moving the
> | revision-history for branches in shared repositories from the branch to
> | the shared repo?
> |
> | Benefits:
> |
> |  - Ability to audit a shared-repo and check for prunable revisions.
> 
> You can already do this.

Ohh, I know that you can prune a specific revision but I didn't know that
there was a check for prunable revisions. How does one do it?

> |  - create a new checkout or standalone branch based upon the information
> |    stored in revision-history
> 
> That doesn't sound like an observable feature to me.

branches associated with shared repos seem to have a file named
branch-history in .bzr/branch. The lines in this file look like revision
ids to me. This leaves me thinking that if this file were given a nice
name like branch-history.bzr.dev then I could:

 1. remove my bzr.dev branch with its working tree.
 2. Later decide I want bzr.dev back
 3. do something approximately equivilant "bzr branch --stored bzr.dev"
    and rebuild the bzr.dev branch.


> |  - Would feel more similiar to CVS, SVN, Bazaar-1.x and Arch (!)
> 
> | Drawbacks:
> |  - would require the definitition of additional UI
> |  - A branch has to track what revision-history its associated with.
> 
> This is the main problem with this idea-- you still need a 1:1 mapping
> of branches and revision histories, and I can't see why it's any help to
> store the revision history separately.  Hell, a branch mostly *is* its
> revision history.

Aye. Most of the metadata is this. A bigger part would be the working tree
that comes with it. I'm not sure which of the metadata present for a
branch is copied and which is stored in the revision.

> Presumably, this would mean separating the revision-history from the
> branch lock, and that can't be a good idea.

Hmm. This does sound problematic.
  
> Oh, and revision-history should be replaced with a last-revision pointer
> before we consider this, anyhow.

I'll look up and read the spec for this as soon as I have the opportunity.

Thanks for the time,
James



-- 
My home page:   <a href="http://jblack.linuxguru.net">James Blackwell</a>
Gnupg 06357400  F-print AAE4 8C76 58DA 5902 761D  247A 8A55 DA73 0635 7400
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060320/ecc58286/attachment.pgp 


More information about the bazaar mailing list