[RFC] Bundles as repositories

[Wichmann, Mats D]

bazaar-bounces at lists.canonical.com wrote:
> I think this has been roughly discussed, but wanted to be sure it
> had.. 
> 
> I think we want a compact binary bundle format, with the human text
> overall delta just an ignored-prelude. 

I read this and I'm not getting all of it, I suppose.
Is this proposing moving completely away from the
"bundle as a rich patch" type format?  Or is it, as
the above seems to indicate, the patch-like stuff is
in the bundle so humans can use it for reviewing, 
but that stuff is not used directly by the tools?
The latter is much better than the former, but binary
things tend to get broken by emailing (which is going
to happen with bundles) no matter how cautious you
are so I'd still be rather nervous.