Stacked branching question
david.ingamells at mapscape.eu
Mon Jul 21 17:20:10 BST 2008
My point is exactly that there should be enough information in a shallow branch to be able to do a diff and thus derive a delta.
That is what I meant by a _little_ bit of depth. The little bit of depth being one revision deep. (In other word not zero revisions deep).
It is exactly from the use-case you mentioned that I am coming from. If you think about what I said should be possible (e.g diff on local changes)
it is implicit that there should be something local to diff on (and thus provide a basis for the deltas you say are essential)
From: Colin D Bennett <colin at gibibit.com>
Sent: Mon 07/21/08 17:57:15
To: David Ingamells <david.ingamells at mapscape.eu>;
CC: Nicholas Allen <allen at ableton.com>; Martin Pool <mbp at canonical.com>; Bazaar <bazaar at lists.canonical.com>;
Subject: Re: Stacked branching question
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:24:03 +0200
David Ingamells <david.ingamells at mapscape.eu> wrote:
> I concur with Nicholas. It is my hope that one should be able to do
> everything that moves forward from the branched revno without any
> need for the repositories further down the stack. Thus "commit",
> "diff" (on local changes) and "status" should all work without
> needing to look outside the local branch.
However, when stacked branches are used as a more flexible substitute
for shared repositories (think: a multi user hosting service or a team's
multi user VCS server), it is desirable to have commits be able to be
stored as deltas from past revision data, especially when dealing with
So I think that if at some point an offline commit to a stacked branch
is permitted, it should be an optional feature since it would eliminate
the possibility of storing the new revision as a delta based on
revision data from the stacked-on branch.
> Obviously "missing", "diff"
> with old revno's, "log" etc will be crippled without access to the
> repos below the top of the stack.
> After all, this enhancement did start off life with the name 'shallow
> branches' and the term 'shallow' does imply a _little_ bit of
> depth ;-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bazaar