Recommended use of Bazaar for single-committer multiple-machine projects?
mbp at canonical.com
Sat Dec 13 00:29:06 GMT 2008
On 13 Dec 2008, Marius Kruger <amanic at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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)
You'd have to remove the concept of bound branches (or at least
deprecate creation of new ones), and bind/unbind would then go away too.
You could though through reconfigure (or some shorter form) change a
checkout into an independent branch.
> 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.
I suppose you mean refuse doing operations against the master branch.
That could be good: it would close out some bugs to do with doing the
4-way merge, and some user confusion there.
I'd still like to see if we shouldn't be a bit more aggressive in
More information about the bazaar