landing brisbane-core Q: development5/6 vs gc-chk-* plan?

[Robert Collins]

On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 11:37 +1000, Ian Clatworthy wrote:
> Being an "experimental" branch, brisbane-core has a bunch
> of new potential formats. Are we planning to roll those into
> bzr.dev and only expose one externally? Or should we pick
> one and remove the code supporting the others?

One. It will complicate people testing it because it will have the rich
root transition built in (and possibly subtrees depending on Aaron's
choice about how to handle this).

> In particular, lots of the new tests explicitly state the
> repo format as "development5" or "development5-subtree".
> Should those change to development6, particularly as the
> WT version needs to rev to wt6 (now that filtered views are
> excluded from wt5)?

The 5 is a serial on the development namespace, not on repo/tree/branch.
We varied from this slightly for your wt5, and AFAICT it just added to
the confusion. I'd like to roll that naming change back and resume the
normal sequence. To avoid confusion with --development-wt5 I think
--development6-rich-root. (the -rich-root to make it clear to people
that do consider trying this that we're not offering a 'plain' format).
We should rename the --development alias to --development-rich-root at
the same time.

-Rob
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20090406/6ec613a2/attachment.pgp