Explorer 0.10.0 release plans - call for testing and translations

[Ian Clatworthy]

A. S. Budden wrote:

> The most important criteria for a working folder for us
> is that it is directly linked to our (extremely regularly and
> incrementally backed up) server.  Therefore, either a lightweight or
> heavyweight checkout is acceptable.  I like heavyweight ones as they
> give the option of doing local commits when the network is being slow
> or when working on a laptop, but the default is ALWAYS to go to the
> server.

That's useful information. Thanks.

> With a lightweight/heavyweight option in the checkout dialog, we would
> show the users in the department that they must always use the
> checkout dialog and then they can choose one of two options.  With the
> option in qbranch, they either go to checkout or branch but if they go
> to branch they MUST configure it in a non-default way.

Here's how I plan to address this:

1. Add a 'Bind new branch to parent' checkbox to qbranch.

2. Give you an Explorer Preference (under Behaviour) called
   'Default to bound branches' (or something like that). If set,
   the checkbox mentioned in (1) will be enabled by default.

> I can work round the checkout aspect by suggesting that users uncheck
> the "Use custom checkout dialog" button and use QBzr's checkout dialog
> instead.  It's just a shame that Bazaar Explorer doesn't automatically
> open the checkout.

Don't forget that you're also missing out on the smart "check the
destination is inside a shared repo" feature that's Explorer's custom
qbranch provides if your users go the heavyweight checkout route via
QBzr's qcheckout dialog.

> It also doesn't (obviously) get around my ongoing
> desire for the "Remote Feature Branches" initialisation.

I'm hoping to look at your patch this weekend for that. But I've said
that before. :-(

> As an aside, the one thing I would love to see in the branch dialog (I
> guess) is a way to take an existing (no-trees) branch on the server
> and create a new (no-trees) repository/trunk on the server with a new
> local checkout.  If I understand it correctly, I think that this is
> also what John A. Meinel was suggesting with Bug #430251.  I guess at
> the moment it's not too bad as you can create the repository without
> working trees and then use qswitch to do the rest.

Yes, that's the current best option. I still feel that qswitch's combo
box should show the branches in the associated branch's repository but
that's another papercut for another day.

Ian C.