hg branch == bzr ???

[j w]

On Jan 18, 2008 2:29 PM, John Arbash Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Having branches at specific paths makes it a bit easier to see what
> branches you have (ls repo, apache's default Index view shows them,
> etc). We already provide shared repositories and lightweight checkouts,
> so you can leverage that to re-use the working tree between multiple
> branches.
>
> John

I agree with the philosophy of directory-per-branch in general, but
let me explain my situation:
I'm trying to use bzr "on top of" perforce.

I have a perforce root directory, and I'd like to put a handful of the
files under it into bzr control.
This way I can make incremental commits on my features before
submitting the "real" perforce changelist to everyone else.

Additionally, I sometimes work on multiple mutually-exclusive features
at once, so I need to be able to switch between threads of
development.

So I guess I would do something like this?
bzr init in my perforce root
make a "default" branch in some outside-of-p4-root directory
make a "featureX" branch in some other outside-of-p4 directory
switch between them with 'bzr switch'
sync in perforce while I'm switched to 'default', switch to
'featureX', merge in default, etc, continue work on featureX, etc.

or something along those lines...

So I think it works having the different branches in different
directories, but for my case it feels a little odd. Mainly because p4
wants to enforce its "your checkout is located HERE" philosophy.

Thanks to you and Toshio for clearing up my terminology issues (:

-John