question regarding bazaar

[Mohit Aron]

First, my apologies for having started two threads on the same issue by
mistake. The other thread has the subject "efficiency over NFS" and carries
the bulk of the discussion.


> >  If the matter is just that NFS working trees are somewhat slower than
> >  local disk ones, I don't think such a state of affairs would indicate
> >  that "you're not supposed to do that"; it's more like "if you do that,
> >  you should expect somewhat reduced performance".
>
> The inconsistency of posix locking capability on NFS implementations
> and the risk of becoming disconnected in the middle of a Bazaar
> operation should be considered.



As I clarified in the other thread, I don't want bzr to use locks when a
'bzr edit' is done. Its just a way to record in the local repository that
the user is modifying a given  file. Later, a 'bzr status' or 'bzr commit'
just needs to consult with this list and not do a stat on each file in the
workspace.



>
>
> Also I still don't quite get the model Mohit Aron's using.  If they
> have a single central branch with a working-tree how do they avoid
> developers accidentally committing or modifying uncommitted work of
> other developers?  Surely they should still have their own workspace
> (in which case they can have their own tree-less branch and a local
> checkout solving the NFS working-tree performance problem).
>

We don't use a single working tree - each developer has his own tree (or
workspace). However, this workspace is on NFS. We don't want to have a local
checkout because one is not expected to checkin every line of code one
writes - so there's a danger of the local disk crashing and one loosing
his/her work due to that.


- Mohit
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20080306/64f8668b/attachment.htm