[MERGE] Switch nick too

Marius Kruger amanic at gmail.com
Mon Sep 29 09:52:45 BST 2008

2008/9/28 Marius Kruger <amanic at gmail.com>

> 2008/9/3 John Arbash Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com>
> John Arbash Meinel has voted resubmit.
>> Status is now: Resubmit
>> Comment:
>> I think the general consensus is that we should use
>> "get_master_branch().nick". If that isn't the case, then we should discuss
>> it more on the mailing list.
>> For details, see:
>> http://bundlebuggy.aaronbentley.com/project/bzr/request/%3C418c22640807222226s7c2a544n2d34469a2c3e91a1%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> I still don't agree, You want ALL checkouts to ALWAYS obtain the nick of
> the master branch.
> * I think people might still want to be able to override the default nick
> (obtained from the master) with something else.
>    I think that the switch use case is a special type of checkout which is
> there to aid a specific workflow.
>    I want it to work nice for that workflow, without impacting other
> worklows or forcing a checkout to have the same nick as its master.
> * Matthew is concerned about the network overhead implications, which might
> not be that bad considering that for commits it hits the network in any
> case.
> * What should happen if the user *does* try to set the nick of the
> checkout?
>    Should it try to set the nick on the master branch?
>    What if the master is a readonly branch or you don't want people to
> change that nick accidentally?
>    Or should it warn you that it is futile? "All your nick are belong to
> us!"
> If people STILL think taking away the right of ALL freedomloving checkouts
> to have their own independent nicks, is what we want,
> I'll be happy to make the change even if I don't fully aggree.

I thought about it a little more and read Robert comments on the bug (
And I think I finally understand what you have been saying:

Robert Collins wrote:
Some notes -
 - implicit nicks should be drawing from the branch anyway
 - the implicit nick of a bound branch should draw from the url of the
 - if there is an explicit nick of a bound branch, it should be changed
to the nick of the new master when switching (and probably done at
bind() time for consistency)
 - switching should not create an explicit nick where there was none

So if and only if there is an explicit nick already set, it should it set
the nick explicitly again.
Is there a way to unset the nick?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20080929/41079d54/attachment.htm 

More information about the bazaar mailing list