Shallow branches - some thoughts

[Erik Bågfors]

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.
>
>