1.0 roadmap

Andrew Cowie andrew at operationaldynamics.com
Wed Nov 21 06:19:42 GMT 2007


On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 14:03 -0600, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> 9) I know Robert has some good ideas about how to evolve packs in the next few
> releases. I would guess we would want to wait to make them the default until
> after at least most of those have occurred. (Otherwise we will end up having a
> recommended upgrade each month.)

One of the biggest critiques levelled at Bazaar by the Git folks has
been the instability of the data formats. While *you* and *I* know
things are "fine" and that data has not been compromised, there was a
lot of agreement with Keith's infamous comment about repository formats.
I would encourage you, therefore, to get 'packs' stabilized before
calling Bazaar 1.0.

If "large" projects won't consider Bazaar until the performance is
"better"*, then no need to invite them to decide once and for all that
Bazaar isn't up to it.

AfC

* is this really the case, or is it something else?

P.S. Why is it referred to as "knitpack" and not just "pack"? Couldn't
you just call it "pack" in `bzr init-repo --help`? Also getting the
default branch format with new branches to be whatever it's supposed to
be and to clean out the cruft of the options like --weave and
--metaweave and --dirstate-tags. (Comment from a serious freedesktop
hacker used to using Git: "You have to use a special OPTION to make TAGS
work in Bazaar?!?!? You're kidding, right?") No reason for that
confusing stuff to be the first thing a user ever sees out of the help
system.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20071121/4176003a/attachment.pgp 


More information about the bazaar mailing list