So many repo formats

[Viktor Nagy]

so, now I moved back in time when 1.9 was not yet available, and try to
generalise Robert's answer for the future.

""
Here's a decision tree:
Are you working with an existing project?
Yes: Use whatever they are using. bzr will do this for you by default.

Are you using bzr-svn?
Yes: use **the most recent** rich-root format

Are working with big trees(5K+paths) or deep history (5K+revisions)?
Yes: use **the most recent format**, if your team is able to (e.g. not
version-locked to an
    old bzr due to corporate policy)
""
but then why?
"Otherwise: do not specify formats to any commands, bzr will Just Work." As
it defaults to pack-0.92. The two responses are clearly contradictory. I
know that a similar question was raised today with moving bzr.dev to 1.6.
This was proposed by Robert, and his reason against 1.9 was that it is the
most recent format.

Strange enough, if this is an acceptable reason then in the above answer you
would like to change **the most recent** to **the most recent - 1**. :)

Anyway, thanks for the decision tree! I'll stick with in for future use!

V

2008/11/17 Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net>

> On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 18:15 +1100, Andrew Bennetts wrote:
> > Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> > > Robert Collins writes:
> > >  > On Sun, 2008-11-16 at 23:45 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > [...]
> > >  > > How 'bout if you're using bzr-svn with deep history or big trees?
> > >  >
> > >  > 1.9-rich-root, its covered already :).
> > >
> > > Although Stefan likes functional languages, I'm sure he can simulate
> > > one at need.<wink>
> > >
> > > I would guess his question is "does 1.9-rich-root cost anything
> > > relative to 1.9 in big trees and/or with deep history, or do I really
> > > get the free lunch of 1.9 performance with rich-root features?"  Even
> > > if that's not Stefan's question, this inquiring mind would like to
> > > know.
> >
> > You get the free lunch.  Performance of 1.9-rich-root is the same as
> > plain 1.9.
>
> A little detail for folk interested in this. The 'rich-root' formats
> contain one (one!) extra field vs the plain (not suffixed) formats: They
> record a last-changed field for the root of the tree; This was omitted
> in the very original formats of 'bzr', which made the root special and
> this caused various issues later on in merge, join, split and other
> commands. Conversion from a plain to a rich root format has to
> reserialise the tree, which costs - so don't change a project to
> rich-root willy-nilly. But fetching between two rich-root formats is
> just as fast as fetching between the same same plain variants.
>
> -Rob
> --
> GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
>



-- 
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/20081117/d4daa524/attachment.htm