New Emacs Bazaar Repository II

[John Arbash Meinel]

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


...

> Secondly, I am somewhat confused about why 0.92 pack branches are the
> default branch type in a 1.9 format repository.  Everything worked the
> same, but you would get warnings when stacking on the branches.  To my
> limited experience that seems like a very odd default.  When pulling
> branches into a 1.9 formatted repository it seems like you should get
> 1.9 format branches.
> 

This was brought up recently. And it falls back to "repositories are a
storage optimization" which isn't a great answer, but is why it is that way.

We don't have a default branch format for a given repository format. We
just have a "default branch format" and a "default repository format".
Doing "bzr init-repo --XXX" sets the format of the repo, but that has no
effect on the branches inside.

While it arguably *could*, there are other concerns like "bzr branch"
into that repo. Should it be upgrading the branch format automatically?
Doesn't that break "don't upgrade unless explicitly requested so as to
maintain inter-version compatibility" ?

Personally, I agree that "bzr init" (no options) inside a repository
should probably use a repository-default branch format. I'm on the fence
for 'bzr branch'. You are upgrading the internal repository storage, so
pushing to a new location will use the new format, however, pushing a
new branch into an existing repository would only upgrade the Branch
format. So there is still use in not auto-upgrading.

John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkmkkwMACgkQJdeBCYSNAAM8yACfUTcqiqpUVjZ+CG/lOrinSwAK
ZXEAniCmncua2tgXOdsCKhjqvYjaNJmC
=tCkW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----