Recording branch points

[David Allouche]

Robert Collins wrote:
> FWIW I agree we have fundamental differences between bzr and svn/arch
> etc. The most pithy statement I have for the difference is to say that
> the value of a bzr branch is not defined by location, rather by content.
> This is not the same as saying that branches are defined are defined by
> value rather than location. That is, two bzr branches with the same tip
> revision are only considered to be the same branch when they are at the
> same URL. However, two branches at different urls can have the same
> value, even though user preferences etc will be different.

In this model, a branch and its mirror are two different branches if the
mirror it out of date. Saying that a branch value is defined by its tip
revision is the same to me as saying as there no such thing as a branch
in the model, only revisions.

> Right now there is enough information to infer branch points very
> reliably using the branch nick field. By default it should do a plenty
> accurate job, with only occasional false positives (user renames a
> branch), and false negatives (user repurposes an existing directory for
> another task, while branching it to somewhere else to continue
> development on the old branch).
> 
> I'd want to see a pretty thorough analysis of the failure modes that
> will leak up to the UI before I would be convinced of the safety and
> tastefulness of adding a branch point marker per se.

Very simple.

By default, the nick of a branch is the basename of its location.

By default, bzr branch preserves the basename of the branch.

Using only default behaviour, the branch nick is useless to track branch
points.

-- 
                                                            -- ddaa

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20061017/1b298d2c/attachment.pgp