Recommended use of Bazaar for single-committer multiple-machine projects?

[Jelmer Vernooij]

Am Samstag, den 13.12.2008, 01:04 +0200 schrieb Marius Kruger:
> 2008/12/13 Martin Pool <mbp at canonical.com>
>         Getting rid of them would mean we could still have checkouts,
>         but
>         committing to a checkout would always go into its branch,
>         whether that's
>         on the same machine or elsewhere.  So this would mean
>         checkouts of a
>         remote branch would only really work if you had access to the
>         server,
>         much like in svn, though you would be able to do wt-only
>         operations with
>         no connection.
>         
>         We wouldn't need the four-way merge of wt-basis, wt, local
>         branch,
>         remote branch, that can currently happen in updates.
> Then you'd also have to remove unbind (because you can unbind, commit,
> bind)
> 
> I just think we should refuse if there are changes in wt and local
> branch,
> forcing people to do another commit --local to have a clean working
> tree 
> before updating (like merge). In this way we protect the user from
> accidentally messing things up, and we don't loose functionality.
That sounds like a fair compromise to me. It prevents everybody
(including myself, many times) from shooting themselves in the foot and
leaves the road open to fix this in the future, and keeps the useful
sides of --local.

Cheers,

Jelmer
-- 
Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at samba.org> - http://samba.org/~jelmer/
Jabber: jelmer at jabber.fsfe.org