Repository format

[Viktor Nagy]

2009/2/4 Karl Fogel <karl.fogel at canonical.com>

>
> The issue is more that somehow users still end up feeling they need to
> know more about formats -- they worry that the default might not be good
> enough.  The goal is not necessarily to have no other formats, it's just
> to stop that worry.
>
>
and indeed, the users find out that the default is often not good enough :)

as it was pointed out in a parallel thread even today, there is a tradeoff
between the clearly better (faster, etc) formats and the potential of
backward compatibility problems

following the list since september, it seems to me that upgrading the
default format emerges at least once a month, and I don't remember any
conclusion in terms of which format to use by default in bzr.
The last time, as far as I remember, the closing state was that bzr should
use 1.6 as it's stable and well tested, even though 1.9 is considered to be
stable as well and is superior to 1.6. To me this argument sounds rather
strange, as it's not cristal-clear how could then any format mature enough,
and what actually stable means if it is not the default, but the best
format.

But, thankfully, given the friendly and detailed responses, at the end the
interested user always learns, that it is kinda safe to use the highest
stable format, even if it is not the default for some strange reasons. :)

V
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20090204/aeb05b1b/attachment.htm