Bzr plugins *must* die!

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

Jelmer Vernooij wrote:

> FWIW, bzr-loom will be packaged in intrepid.

Thats good news. I'll give it a try when I switch.

> I would say conservative is whatever is provided by your distribution.

Except that I have an extra requirement of bzr versions for Dapper and
Hardy that are compatible. I suspect that this is not an unusual
requirement.

> Which specific complex plugins would you want to see merged though? I
> think shelve is already on the list of candidates to be merged into bzr
> core.

As a user I have very little idea which bzr sub-command is a built
in and which is a plugin. I'm really not sure.

> Do you run nightly snapshots of these tools? 

No, but I don't do that for Bzr either.

My undestanding was that the ppa.launchpad.net packages for say
Dapper were simply the latest release backported to Dapper. Maybe
I was wrong.

My problem is that by default I work in Hardy with Hardy's Bzr.
A bit less than once a day I chroot into Dapper and need to 
use bzr on the same tree that was being used by Hardy. If the
Dapper ppa version is not the best solution for this then what
is?

Erik
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erik de Castro Lopo
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Lumping configuration data, security data, kernel tuning parameters,
etc. into one monstrous fragile binary data structure is really dumb."
- David F. Skoll