[RFC][2.0] large file support design

Robert Collins robert.collins at canonical.com
Fri Jun 5 07:01:22 BST 2009

On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 15:44 +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> 2009/6/5 Robert Collins <robert.collins at canonical.com>:
> > This is a proposed change for 2.0.
> Hi,
> This sounds like a good thing to fix and a pretty clear description of
> how one might start fixing it.  But I really don't think we should be
> adding any new features to 2.0 now, even ones that can be done quite
> quickly.  We should now be trying to stabilize and ship what we have,
> not add new things and really even trying to hold back a bit from
> thinking about post 2.0 things.

We have a few big glaring bugs [as opposed to missing features] that
people keep running into:
 - dirstate on windows
 - parallel imports
 - large files

It may be that we can't fix any of these for 2.0.

Given the direction of having no format bumps during 2.x, we're raising
the cost of doing 2.0 without fixing these. If there is (say) a year
before 3.0, then its pretty disconcerting to think that we'll be saying
'there is no way to use bzr in these circumstances' for a year after we
fix these issues.

-------------- 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/20090605/3d56fd9e/attachment-0001.pgp 

More information about the bazaar mailing list