bzr on Emacs performance suggestions

[Robert Collins]

Norbert, any chance you could refresh the lenny backport to 2.0.2 ? 

On Sun, 2009-11-29 at 15:12 -0600, Karl Fogel wrote:
> 
> 
> http://savannah.gnu.org/maintenance/Bzr indicates that Savannah will
> upgrade to Bazaar 2.0 when Debian stable or backports offers it. 

So, stable has 1.5; I infer that savannah is getting 1.17 from
backports. 

But backports has 1.16.1: http://packages.debian.org/lenny-backports/bzr

So, colour me confused. If 1.17 has been installed, why can't 2.0 be
installed?

To add more confusion, the http://savannah.gnu.org/maintenance/Bzr page
says "Consequently we will not offer both sftp: and bzr+ssh: at the same
time, as the combination of both would allow users to run arbitrary
commands on the server through commit hooks, in effect getting local
access." Which is false. Bzr would be broken by design if you could do
that from simple access to the repository. You could write a new plugin
to ~/.bazaar/plugins; but you can alter your shell rc to make ssh
misbehave if you can write to ~ anyway, so its appropriate to completely
deny write access in these cases anyway. With write access to
~/.bazaar/plugins denied, I'm not aware of any other way to inject a
plugin into the server process.

I've added this to the referenced issue.

Debian unstable has 2.0.2. That will be much faster than 1.16.1, or 1.17
(whereever that version has been obtained from).

I've copied Nortbert Tretkowski who uploaded 1.16.1 to lenny-backports,
hopefully he's willing to get 2.0.2 in there, and that will address one
of savannah's concerns.

-Rob
-------------- 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/20091130/3f3c30c8/attachment-0001.pgp