bazaar 2.0beta format for launchpad release

Andrew Cowie andrew at
Wed Jun 3 05:28:18 BST 2009

On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 08:00 +0200, Martin Pool wrote:

> I'd like to rename this format to 2.0beta in the next release.
> Ideally we'll do that in such a way that if the format is unchanged in
> 2.0, we won't require a further upgrade to just call it --format 2.0.

Somewhat an aside: this is the sort of thing that always happens when
one names a format in lockstep with a public version number.

By way of illustrating a non-lockstep way of doing it, the most up to
date version of the Java class file schema is presently 50.0 ; I think
it was 46.0 in Java 1.4.2 and 49.0 in Java 1.5.0. Presumably the
major.minor thing is operating, with major not backwards compatible.

[this caused a vast kerfuffle when Java 1.5 came out. No one had really
ever been conscious of class version number; the meme was that .class
files were a static format. Nope. Nothing of the sort — as people who
used Java 1.6.0 to compile things in dev found out if they tried to run
the resultant classes with a 1.4.2 VM in production. Anyway, now we all
know about class file formats]

Anyway, if bzr mainstream formats were increasing in a manner like this
not in lockstep with the software release version number, we'd be at
some version that would have nothing to do with "2.0" and so "wouldn't
require a further upgrade".

The cost, of course, is people asking "what version of bzr do I need to
work with repository format 29?" but surely `bzr --version` could tell
you what it's up to, and we're getting that question from people now


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : 

More information about the bazaar mailing list