Shallow branches - some thoughts
Erik Bågfors
zindar at gmail.com
Thu Mar 13 16:33:50 GMT 2008
How is this different from a "full" branch where you don't have commit
access? What do you want to behave different?
Regards,
Erik
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:
> In reading the thread on shallow branches, it has become clear to me
> that my requirements may not be as complex as those being discussed.
> Specifically, the discussions seem to assume that a shallow branch
> must, of necessity, be treated as an equal of the source branch.
>
> In my case, I have no interest in taking a shallow branch from a repo
> where I have commit rights - for that situation, I would use either a
> full branch, or a lightweight checkout. The case where I would use a
> shallow branch would be where I only had read access to the source,
> and I wanted to create a local branch, where I could do development
> and merge from the source, but I would never expect to push back
> directly (contributions back would be via patches or maybe merge
> directives only).
>
> I'm very new with Bazaar, and so my grasp of the various concepts is
> far from strong, but as a result of the above, I wonder: would there
> be any simplification if shallow branches were to be considered as
> unrelated to their "parent", in the same sense that not all operations
> need to be allowed - pulls from the parent are OK, but pushes back to
> the parent are not, basically.
>
> This model also avoids the question of history "disappearing", in the
> sense that (conceptually at least) the shallow branch is not a full
> project repository (in the same sense that a lightweight isn't).
>
> Does any of this make sense?
>
> Paul.
>
>
More information about the bazaar
mailing list