Repository format

[Aaron Bentley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Karl Fogel wrote:
> John Yates <jyates at netezza.com> writes:
>> Karl Fogel writes:
>>> That is, if 1.9's functionality is a superset of all
>>> preceding formats, then the only [reason] not to use
>>> 1.9 would be compatibility concerns with older Bazaars.
>>> Obviously, only the user can answer that question, but
>>> assuming a clean slate, 1.9 is the way to go, right?
>> Given a clean slate would it be preferable to use some
>> rich-root format?
> 
> I've heard not... but would love that to be substantiated by someone
> more knowledgeable.

Not.

The commands (e.g. upgrade) are tuned for non-rich-root formats at the
moment.  There's little benefit to using rich-root if you're not using
bzr-svn.  If you are using bzr-svn, you get it automatically.

Most projects use non-rich-root, so you'll need a non-rich-root shared
repo.  If you use rich-root, you must have an additional separate
repository for rich-root projects, which can be awkward.  Better to not
require two repos.

I expect that the first format where we recommend using rich-root for
everything will be brisbane-core.

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkmJ3kgACgkQ0F+nu1YWqI133wCfYn8uFfLgs1YGhQzbk3xxPPmF
ufAAn1G7fGOJkrHDtQ/AS7o278KzuxPv
=Oa+Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----