[1.13][merge] set default format to 1.9 and tweak remote branch stacking

[Jelmer Vernooij]

On Sat, 2009-03-07 at 11:45 -0600, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > On Sat, 2009-03-07 at 17:45 +1300, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> >> Martin Pool wrote:
> >>> This
> >>>
> >>>  * sets the default repository format to 1.9, which is straightforward
> >>> but needs a few changes to blackbox tests that include the format
> >>> number
> >> If we're going to make a watershed, I'd prefer to switch to a
> >> tree-reference format, so that we don't have another watershed and we
> >> can stop having multiple variations of each repository format.
> >>
> >> However, this requires some changes in the working tree, so that people
> >> don't accidentally get nested trees.  Ideally, it would happen with a
> >> new format.
> >>
> >> However, I'd be able to start work on this next week.
> >>
> >> However, it's a judgement call, and I'll work with whatever you decide.
> > Since formats are never made the default until a couple of releases have
> > gone by, this would mean not having rich root support in the default
> > format until something like 1.17 (July/Aug) ?
> Converting from non-rich-root to rich-root takes a fairly obscene amount
> of time because we completely deserialize the full inventory. When CHK
> lands, at least we won't be building another full inventory on the other
> side.
> 
> I really don't see much advantage of rich-root for "normal people", and
> paying the conversion is a bit foolish, when they'll have to pay the
> *same* obscene cost to convert to CHK in another couple months.
Well, CHK seems a more reasonable thing to tie the switch to rich-root
to, also because it is closer to landing. I don't think it's a good idea
to tie rich roots to subtrees; there will always be newer features that
will require newer formats and I just fear that waiting for subtrees
means it'll be another year before we're actually ready to make such a
format the default.

The current change of the default format is unfortunate for rich root
users, since "bzr upgrade" doesn't handle the difference between rich
root and non-rich root formats well yet as I mentioned in my other email
to this thread.

Jelmer
-- 
Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at samba.org> - http://samba.org/~jelmer/
Jabber: jelmer at jabber.fsfe.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 315 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20090307/93334350/attachment.pgp