Playing with stacked branches

[Aaron Bentley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Robert Collins wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 10:51 -0400, Aaron Bentley wrote:
>> First, I thought we were going to use the term "stacked" rather than
>> "shallow", but the current docs and parameters use "shallow".
> 
> Good point. I used shallow when I was thinking in UI terms. Perhaps
> stacked would be better there too.

I think it would be a good idea, because the goal of stacking, efficient
storage, isn't the same as the goal we've given for shallow branches.
http://bazaar-vcs.org/HistoryHorizon

For shallow branching, the idea was that would be usable independently
from their fallback repository, via a history horizon.

>> The current implementation requires that the stacked-on branch be in a
>> stacking-aware format.  Is that actually necessary?  Is it so that the
>> branch can specify whether it is willing to be stacked on?
> 
> Its because the current implementation peeks under the hood to get at
> the list of packs

Cool.  Since we're on the topic, do you think branches should be able to
refuse to be stacked on?

>> With branch6, we moved to storing metadata in the branch.conf file,
>> rather than in single files on disk.  Stacked branches store the
>> "stacked-on" branch in a single file.  Is this a deliberate design
>> choice, or just a case of getting it done the fastest way?
> 
> My bad, I did what has worked before. Do you know a good method to crib
> from to use the branch.conf file?

Branch6.get_public_branch / set_public_branch look good to me.

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFH/aXs0F+nu1YWqI0RAiFvAJ0ccaLVDL2Khea5a89xhtR0ZMw5awCaA5Gy
niNjAqU+g5YI0R/EkY8I31Y=
=UIL+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----