[MERGE] Tree-specific rules

Lukáš Lalinský lalinsky at gmail.com
Mon Jan 5 10:36:33 GMT 2009

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 5:40 AM, Ian Clatworthy
<ian.clatworthy at internode.on.net> wrote:
> lifeless, fullermd and I discussed tree-specific rules on
> IRC today and agreed there was value in supporting them Real
> Soon Now. Ultimately, we'd like to be able to define rules
> that apply at a 'project' and/or branch level, perhaps by
> embedding rules in locations.conf and branch.conf. That's
> quite a complex change though, requiring further debate
> (e.g. are nested sections in ini-files too ugly a syntax?)
> and probably a branch format bump. There are also complexities
> around reapplying rules from different branches against
> a lightweight checkout.

This makes me wonder what are "rules" meant to be useful for. I was
expecting them to be a solution for defining some extra metadata about
versioned files, like text encoding, line endings, keyword expansion
behavior. I don't know if I'm the only one, but I find it unreasonable
to expect users to manually edit .bzr/checkout/rules every time they
make a new branch. Things like keyword expansion are a
project/branch-level decision, not something every user of the branch
should set manually (e.g., the build process might depend on having it
defined in a specific way).


More information about the bazaar mailing list