[RFC] Community driven branch extensions

[Jelmer Vernooij]

Hi Ian,

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 13:50 +1000, Ian Clatworthy wrote:
> Apologies up front for the length of this email. I hope the topic is 
> important enough to warrant it ...

[...]

> Don't that make sense? Am I smoking crazy stuff and ought to be locked 
> up? Are there better ways of achieving the same outcome? If not, would 
> this empower you and what would you use it for?
Yes, I think this would make a lot of sense. It seems like we already
have such a small set of features (subtrees, rich-roots) required for a
repository at the moment, except that set is implied by the format
rather than stored explicitly. 

> Don't get me wrong: there are *lots* of devil in the detail and this is 
> far harder than it sounds. To begin with, the Launchpad guys might lynch 
> me because it may be impossible for them to track all the required 
> plugins for all the required "ad hoc branch formats" that would 
> effectively be created. Perhaps some branches would become "store only" 
> and not viewable via Loggerhead say. Ugly but not a disaster in *my* 
> opinion. On the upside, the best case outcome is that this could be game 
> changing in a very positive way, yes?
I don't think this should be a problem as long as features can be marked
optional or required. E.g. I imagine that loggerhead would work fine
without bzr-keywords installed, even if the branch in question contained
keywords. Also, I suspect anything that helps avoid more upgrades would
be an improvement for lp?

Cheers,

Jelmer


-- 
Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at samba.org> - http://samba.org/~jelmer/
Jabber: jelmer at jabber.fsfe.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20091111/7b9c9337/attachment.pgp