Looms compatible default format?

[Jelmer Vernooij]

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?

Cheers,

Jelmer