So many repo formats

[Viktor Nagy]

Hi,

before some expert gives his opinion (that I would be interested in as
well), here [1] is a list of the available options with a short description
of each of them.

The burgeoning of repo formats annoys me as well as not being an expert
neither in bazaar or in programming concepts in general I can't figure out
what the descriptions actually mean (should I care about stacking?), and for
example is dirstate (introduced in 0.15) is still faster for local
operations then a more recent format (as we are at 1.9).

In general if I don't care about backwards compatibility then is it fair to
say that the newer is always faster? For local and remote operations as
well? Even if the remote is partially "local" (e.g. I have a repo with two
branches in it stored remotely)? Actually, I have the feeling that it's
faster if I commit from local to remote, then log in with ssh, merge the
branches, and finally update the local checkout, then do a bzr merge with
the remote url. (Of course, I've never tested this as I have no idea how to
do it, but if someone gives me some help, I would be happy to do and learn
it. :) )

[1]:
http://doc.bazaar-vcs.org/bzr.dev/en/user-reference/bzr_man.html#storage-formats

V

2008/11/14 Lars Hoss <lars at woeye.net>

> Greetings everyone!
>
> First let me thank you for developing bzr and please keep up your good
> work. What I really like about bzr is it's UI, the fact it is based on
> python and the good communication on this list :-)
>
> One thing that worries me, as a newbie, though, is the amount of different
> repo format available. And the question which one to choose. And the next
> version will bring another one (split inventory?), too.
>
> Today, for example, I wanted to checkout a SVN trunk into my repo. After
> waiting for some time I finally got the message:
>
> bzr: ERROR: KnitPackRepository('file:///C:/temp/bzr_test/.bzr/repository/')
> is not compatible with
> SvnRepository('http://scm.muc.xxx/svn/repos')
> different rich-root support
>
> I guess that creating a repo with --1.9 was wrong and --1.9-rich-root is
> the answer. But what's the point of having both 1.9 and 1.9-rich-root if
> the latter one seem to be the better choice? (btw, It would be cool if bzr
> svn could check the repo format before the checkout. It would have saved
> me some time :-) ).
>
> So if repo format X has feature Y but only works for plugin A,B and not C
> things might get confusing?
>
> Yours,
> Lars
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Viktor Nagy - http://viktornagy.com
PhD student
Toulouse School of Economics
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20081114/6debea05/attachment.htm