Branch fails from 'pack-0.92' repo to 'rich-root-pack' repo

[Ben Finney]

Aaron Bentley <aaron at aaronbentley.com> writes:

> Ben Finney wrote:
> > Aaron Bentley <aaron at aaronbentley.com> writes:
> > 
> >> Ben Finney wrote:
> >>> Aaron Bentley <aaron at aaronbentley.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> This week, I hope to work on a format similar to rich-root-pack
> >>>> that *will* be a suitable default. As part of that work, I will
> >>>> be ensuring that all branches, even weird ones like BE, can be
> >>>> converted into that format.
> >>> How is this work going?
> >> Mostly done and merged.
> >>
> >>> Is it incorporated into the work in Bazaar 1.6?
> >> No, it went into 1.5
> > What is the format called?
> 
> There is no new format.

Then what is the "it" which "went into 1.5", and how does it relate to
the above work?

> > What caveats are there for using it?
> It will cause confusion.

This discussion certainly is, for me at least.

Can someone please clarify? Part of this seems to be saying that
Bazaar 1.5 has "a format similar to rich-root-pack that *will* be a
suitable default", and that Bazaar 1.5 "ensures that all branches,
even weird ones like BE, can be converted into that format".

At least, that's all I can infer from "it went into 1.5". If the
situation is more nuanced, then what *is* the situation and progress
toward the above goal?

-- 
 \      “For mad scientists who keep brains in jars, here's a tip: why |
  `\       not add a slice of lemon to each jar, for freshness?” —Jack |
_o__)                                                           Handey |
Ben Finney