[RFC] branch --bind
Ian Clatworthy
ian.clatworthy at canonical.com
Sat Jan 9 06:10:52 GMT 2010
Robert Collins wrote:
>> * OTOH, bound branches are easy to explain
>
> I dispute that this is a point of difference - they are precisely as
> easy to explain as a heavy checkout, because they are the same thing
> with the exception of *one* command.
The differences are far deeper than one command. See my other email and
http://wiki.bazaar.canonical.com/MatthewFuller/BoundBranches.
> Which provoked a long thread, and I don't see consensus here.
In term of people objecting to adding --bind to branch, I recall Al
Budden and yourself objecting. Anyone else? On deeper analysis:
* Al is after a nicer way of setting up a cbranch-style setup in
Explorer (which is semi-related but not blocked by this change).
* IIUIC, you object at the conceptual level because:
- branch = 'start new line of development'
- checkout = 'give me a local copy'
FWIW, I disagree that branch's purpose is that narrow. I think that
using branch to create a mirror - and pull to keep it up to date - is
fine. Lots of our documentation encourages that. Many of our users do that.
I recalled Jelmer, jam, poolie, Scott and a few others agreeing the
change was a good one. That seemed to be enough people saying "it's
useful to me" to proceed.
I'll wait a few more days in the hope of achieving broader consensus.
(It doesn't seem likely though.)
> So heres something that has been on my mind for a bit. bind is a special
> case of 'please behave specially with respect to <x> remote branch'. And
> further, its a single branch command. But we want to get better at
> working with groups of branches - and we've got nearly no evolution
> happening there.
>
> So here is a strawman that describes a CLI for configuring remote branch
> relationships in a 'repo' (in the usual bzr sense of
> find-the-containing-repo otherwise use .)
Interesting ideas. Thanks for the brain dump.
> If we're going to fix this part of the UI (the whole 'how do I get setup
> properly' question that this is part of) we need to address the actual
> issue that drives the problem: bzr has /no workflow gear around
> collections of branches.
I agree with the need to handle collections of branches better. I think
it's largely orthogonal though (or ought to be) to improving bound
branches and checkouts.
Ian C.
More information about the bazaar
mailing list