[MERGE] Add sha generation support to versionedfiles (brisbane)

[Ian Clatworthy]

Robert Collins wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 21:36 -0500, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
>> I'm a bit concerned that we'll lose a decent chunk of annotation
>> history
>> for things that get cherry-picked in this fashion. (At a minimum see
>> the
>> recent discussion about annotations and multiple revisions introducing
>> the same content.)
>>
>> So I'd sort of rather review things in bite-sized chunks, but then
>> merge
>> the whole branch if we can.
> 
> I could go either way. I don't think the annotations in this branch are
> highly useful. Its 10% of the total size of bzr when I pull it into a
> new bzr.dev branch and we've done a lot of exploring :).
> 
> So I'm leaning towards not merging the branch at all.

Please make a decision on this guys RSN - I've already sent the first patch
(tree tweaks) to PQM. Maybe I should push through the little stuff and we
merge the rest all at once? My perception fwiw is that a single large merge
has a larger risk of destabilisation. At least with bite-sized cherrypicks,
it might be easier if something breaks for bzr.dev users to revert bits until
the find the cherrypick that broke things?

Ian C.