Demonstration Help.

[Colin D Bennett]

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:58:06 +1300
Talden <talden at gmail.com> wrote:

> All the repo without trees does is allow you to have branches without
> the cost of working files.  I need only have a small number of trees
> but have all the history and all the branches at my fingertips.

Agreed—it's the common case where you only need one or a few working
trees at a time, but many branches storing complete revision history
that makes shared repositories so useful when used on a local machine.

>...
> The only thing I don't like about shared repos is that garbage
> collection is awkward.  If you delete half the branches and want all
> revisions that only belonged to those branches to be stripped away you
> need to create a new shared repo and move all the branches you want to
> keep there before removing the old repo - ~double the space and ten
> times the effort (and unless I'm missing something, there's a lot of
> matching up push and pull locations again).

Yes, I wish there were a “bzr gc” command.  Also, uncommitted revisions
from “bzr uncommit” stick around and waste space as well.

Regards,
Colin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20090219/4da29258/attachment.pgp