Bazaar Workflow

[Daed Lee]

On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 5:42 AM, Eugene Wee <crystalrecursion at gmail.com> wrote:
> Personally, I suggest that you just go with it. Ian Clatworthy gives a
> worthy explanation here:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/2008q1/039687.html

I'm reluctant to make the adjustment probably due to the fact that
I've used Subversion for so long. I guess I just need to get used to
managing multiple local clones. Still, I can see this being a tough
sell to other developers. Looking at SuperMMX's example, it requires
managing two local branches and a checkout. This is basically going to
be a non-starter with someone less technically inclined.

On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 5:38 AM, David Cournapeau
<david at ar.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp> wrote:
> I don't know for your workflow, but the workflow described in the above
> post has is easier to handle in git, because you rarely need to clone to
> work on several branches, and switching between branches is
> instantaneous for all but very big projects. This is one of the major
> reason why I ended up prefering git to bzr.

Thanks for the git recommendation. That was next on my to-evaluate list.

On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen at xemacs.org> wrote:
> Yeah, that workflow is not for me.  While I'm currently using git, so
> haven't tried either in production myself, let me suggest that Bazaar
> provides two functions.  The easy one is "shelve" (like "git stash",
> see the "interrupted fix workflow" example in PEP 374:
> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0374/#separation-of-issue-dependencies),
> which allows you to "shelve" your current work, "do some other work --
> including VCS operations", then "unshelve" to get back to where you
> were.  I believe it provides the flexibility to apply the shelved
> changes to the merged revision.

I noticed Mercurial had a shelve extension, but it didn't come
built-in, so I never really looked into it. I'm not sure why such a
common use case is not handled out of the box. Seems like Bazaar is a
bit better in this respect.

> The more invasive change to your workflow would be to use a loom (a la
> Mercurial queues or Stacked Git).  Although I gather they provide far
> more power than this, you could think of them as "named shelves" for
> the present purpose.  An example of how to use looms is as above, same
> URL, same fragment.  The FLUFL (aka Barry Warsaw, who wrote the bzr
> examples in the PEP) has been known to break into song just thinking
> about looms. :-)

I took a quick look at Mercurial Queues and felt it was way too
complex for my workflow. Probably another a case of me being stuck in
the Subversion mindset. I'll try to give queues/looms another chance.

Appreciate all the responses in this thread. They were all very helpful.