Two questions about init and init-repo
dato at net.com.org.es
Sun Jul 2 21:21:48 BST 2006
* Aaron Bentley [Sun, 02 Jul 2006 16:11:00 -0400]:
> Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > Hi.
> > I have two simple issues with init and init-repo, and I'd like to know
> > if they're addressable, or are the current way for a particular reason.
> > 1. Is there a reason init-repo's "location" argument is not optional,
> > defaulting to '.' like init does?
> When I wrote it, it seemed very unlikely that people would want to turn
> '.' into a repository. The idea was that you would keep your branches
> in one place and your lightweight checkouts in another.
> Since repositories would be just directories with branches in them, you
> wouldn't want to init-repo an existing directory, including '.'.
Ok, I see the reasoning behind me. It seems, however, that I have the
`mkdir foo; cd foo; $rcs init` sequence too hardwired that the above
bites me each time I create a repository. But we don't know if the
number of people with this issue is enough to win the above reasoning
> > 2. Has there been talk about an option for init (maybe branch too?, hm)
> > to prevent the shared (with --trees) repository from being used?
> No, I don't think we've discussed that. Obviously, there are
> workarounds to achieve that, but how do you see it being useful?
Hm. I can only speak about my particular circumstance: a repo with trees
with various branches of Tailor, and in some directory under them, a
test area in which, cough, bzr branches get created and thrown away
after each set of changes. I'm putting the tests elsewhere now that I've
noticed how fast .bzr was growing.
Other than that, I can only think on careful people who want to keep
their repository uncluttered, and always start with a standalone branch,
to move it to a repository branch if it's getting them somewhere.
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org
I try to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out.
More information about the bazaar