Looms compatible default format?
jelmer at samba.org
Fri May 1 04:09:14 BST 2009
Martin Pool wrote:
> 2009/5/1 Aaron Bentley <aaron at aaronbentley.com>:
> Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
>>> Looms currently require a custom branch format that's provided by the
>>> looms plugin. This makes it impossible to open loom branches unless you
>>> have the looms plugin.
>>> How much code would be required to support the required methods for
>>> looms on the new branch format implementation? If it's a small amount of
>>> code, would this be useful? Has this perhaps already been considered in
>>> the past?
> I'm not sure if you mean "open looms in a fallback way without the
> plugin" or "move the format-level support into the core, but maybe not
> the UI."
> The second of them sounds more attractive to me, and I think we should
> tackle it as part of the larger review of what the user model for
> repositories, trees and branches should really be. I think if we have
> a concept of multiple named branches within a single .bzr directory
> then looms would build on top of that fairly straightforwardly and
> cleanly, and then they could either be a policy layer in a plugin or
> built in.
Yeah, that's what I meant.
> However, I don't want to put that discussion on the front burner until
> more of the current work is finished, and then maybe talk around the
> time of UDS. As Robert said on irc
>> concretely, I think we should finish bbc; get commit fully fixed for it (someone needs to do iter_changes), get networking fully done (spiv and I are halfway through the delta representation, jelmer is reporting memory issues,...
That seems reasonable; it would be nice if it could be part of 2.0
though, and that's the reason I'm bringing it up now. Is the sprint too
late for format changes?
More information about the bazaar