re 0.15rc3/win32: bug report, suggestion and question
andrew.voznytsa at gmail.com
Sun Apr 1 15:56:08 BST 2007
John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> Martin Pool wrote:
>> On 4/1/07, Andrew Voznytsa <andrew.voznytsa at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> I tried to use 0.15 with lightweight checkout (0.14) from shared
>>> repository (0.14) and I got this:
>>> OK, I decided to bzr 0.14 unbind/bind to UNC patch in hope to forget
>>> about SSH - no luck. 0.14 (and 0.15) still ask for SSH password. I
>>> looked in <branch>\.bzr\branch\location and there is still sftp URL so
>>> it just silently exited from bind call, without any notifications that
>>> bind failed or is not possible at all.
>> So you're trying to unbind from the ssh location and bind to a UNC
>> location, and that fails because you can't reach the ssh server?
> He has a lightweight checkout, so bind and unbind don't do anything. We
> *could* make 'unbind' be a heavy operation which changes your
> lightweight checkout into a heavy one, but I don't specifically
> recommend that.
>>> Next, suggestion: why not to just allow rebind without connecting to
>>> server? What if server is not (and won't) available anymore and mobile
>>> user will have to use mirror? (checkout from server A to notebook;
>>> server A crash; rebind to server B and use it. I agree that mobile user
>>> won't use lightweight checkout, but anyway it would be useful)
>> I agree that if you're trying to unbind from a server we shouldn't
>> talk to it anymore. Is that what you're seeing? It's more
>> contentious whether we should talk to the new master when you connect,
>> or only when you first try to update or commit.
> That would happen for heavy checkouts, but not for lightweight ones.
> It sounds like he is actually looking for 'bzr switch' which is provided
> by the 'bzrtools' plugin. (Which IIRC is bundled with the windows
> Right now if you have a heavy checkout, doing 'bzr bind
> sftp://new/master' will effectively do 'switch', without connecting to
> the existing master.
> The way our internal model works, whenever you open a lightweight
> checkout it always connects to the remote branch.
> In internal details it is because WT.open() needs a self.branch() and
> BranchReference.open() is designed to return the actual branch, rather
> than proxying for the branch (possibly not actually connecting until the
> first request needs it.)
> I would like to see BranchReference.open() be a proxy, because it would
> also help commands like 'bzr status', since they won't have to connect
> to the remote branch at all.
> It could be something as simple as:
> def open(self, ...):
> self._location = (read .bzr/branch/location)
> self._real_branch = None
> return self
> def __getattr__(self, attr):
> if self._real_branch is None:
> self._real_branch = branch.Branch.open(self._location)
> return getattr(self._real_branch, attr)
> Also, internally we don't have a good way to tell if something is a
> lightweight checkout, because we actually wanted to hide it from
> higher-level code, and we probably hid it a bit too well.
> That brings up another question, though. Would we want 'bzr bind' to
> take over the 'bzr switch' ability? The biggest difference (right now)
> is that 'bzr switch' automatically runs 'bzr update'. (Also, 'bzr
> switch' is explicitly hard-coded to not work on heavyweight checkouts).
OK, I'd just change repository access method - I don't like sftp anymore
and want to use file access over SMB.
Since I'm 'switching' to the same repository is not there any way to
detect this case and update lightweight/heavy checkout without any extra
efforts like running update, etc?
More information about the bazaar