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

[Matthew D. Fuller]

On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 01:04:16AM +0200 I heard the voice of
Marius Kruger, and lo! it spake thus:
> 2008/12/13 Martin Pool <mbp at canonical.com>
>> I was just wondering (in the light of Mary's bug reports) whether
>> we should in fact remove the --local commit feature.  It was a good
>> experiment, and I think checkouts are really useful, but local
>> commits not so much.
>
> Then you'd also have to remove unbind (because you can unbind,
> commit, bind)

I wouldn't think so.  The reasoning for removing --local isn't that
it's "broken" (it has breakage, but that breakage is fixable), but
that it's a demonstrated source of confusion and trouble for users.
I've not noticed bind/unbind to be so (IMO because they're never
suggested as "Hey, you should try this...").

Even if it's _technically_ the same thing, it doesn't seem to carry
the same traps socially.  I think that's because while, in a checkout
sense, either way is "breaking the model" (you're taking the thing
supposed to be in sync, and de-syncing it), --local is doing it sort
of implicitly, while unbind is explicit.  While --local is a sort of
weird "checkout" platypus, unbind is at least a straightforward "bound
branch" thing.


-- 
Matthew Fuller     (MF4839)   |  fullermd at over-yonder.net
Systems/Network Administrator |  http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/
           On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.