Explorer 0.10.0 release plans - call for testing and translations

[Alexander Belchenko]

A. S. Budden пишет:
> 2009/12/11 Alexander Belchenko <bialix at ukr.net>:
>> A. S. Budden пишет:
>>> 2009/12/11 Ian Clatworthy <ian.clatworthy at canonical.com>:
>> There is better way for you anyway: push your branch to LP, merge into it
>> latest trunk and then get copy on all machines at your work.
> 
> I've merged the latest trunk into the launchpad version with the
> current merge proposal and am happy to say that it seemed to go in
> very cleanly.  I guess I was just hoping that all the people who will
> be installing Bazaar would be able to just install Bazaar rather than
> installing Bazaar and then getting a different Bazaar Explorer
> version.  My concern would then be that the current merge proposal
> would be rejected and I'd have to actively monitor changes to the
> initialisation dialog: they could require me to rewrite my patch so
> that all the Bazaar users in the department could keep their
> initialisation method.  I guess in the short term I could try to
> figure out how to write an installer that applies the patch to the
> Bazaar Explorer installation.  Then at least they wouldn't have to
> learn to use Bazaar before getting it completely installed!

I think current automated way to build installer (modulo TBZR, perhaps you don't use it?) will work 
for you.

> As an unrelated aside, I was wondering about writing a patch to the
> Bazaar Explorer checkout dialog to add an additional option to allow
> heavyweight or lightweight checkouts (as we generally use the
> heavyweight ones).  I realise that this could be considered to add
> 'clutter' to the dialog, so before I write it I was wondering: would
> you have any objection to this?

I don't have any objections, but you'd better ping and push Ian when he will back.
That was his idea to push checkouts to be lightweights always, and call heavyweight as bound 
branches. I think there was discussion re user model cleanup in the main bzr list, but I don't 
remember details.

I think what you need is actually possible to achieve by branch+bound, so in the terms of bound 
branches you'd better extend current branch dialog (qbranch or qgetnew in QBzr, depending on what 
bzr-explorer uses). As QBzr developer I won't object against checkbox in qbranch to run `bzr bind 
:parent` after successful branch. Our current architecture makes it easy and possible. Wanna try?