[ANN] bzr-colo 0.0.1: colocated branches using present technology

[Alexander Belchenko]

Aaron Bentley пишет:
> Alexander Belchenko wrote:
>> Aaron Bentley пишет:
>>> Alexander Belchenko wrote:
>>>> There is one more command required: to adjust the checkout location if
>>>> user move the colo branch on the filesystem.
>>> I think switch --force would work for this.  Is there a reason why it
>>> shouldn't?
>> It requires to use /absolute/path/to/.bzr/branches/branch_name.
> 
> So one option would be extending the directory service to accommodate
> this.  We could accept
> 
> colo:branch_name:/absolute/path/to
> 
> as an alternative way of referring to
> /absolute/path/to/.bzr/branches/branch_name, for example.

According to colo documentation there is already such syntax:

colo:/absolute/path/to:branch_name

The problem is colo: service: it points to shared repository root based 
on lightweight checkout location. But in the case of relocating the colo 
entity the colo: will be broken as well, until the lightweight checkout 
location will be fixed. And relative path there will fix the problem 
auto-magically.

The problem with switch --force is that you have to remember actual 
branch name. But if you don't remember it you have to look into 
.bzr/branch/location file, but you have to know before where to look. If 
you're not expert (of course, you Aaron *is* expert and maybe even 
semigod) you're lost and will start tell everybody that moving colo 
entity is horrible bad idea.

>> I think the plugin can provide a more easy and user-friendly way.
>> Is there any reason why it shouldn't?
> 
> There are many reasons why adding a new command might not be the
> approach, including:
> - - The new command will increase user confusion by largely duplicating an
> existing command

Which one? `bzr switch --force colo:branch_name` simply won't work.

> - - Work on the new command and the existing command will be divided,
> resulting in two rough commands instead of one polished command

Which one should be polished? See my previous comment.

> - - We'll miss the opportunity to make generalizations that can benefit
> other commands.

I don't understand this. This plugin is not native solution. My 
co-worker just told me that he won't use this plugin because it can't 
pull/push all branches at once (as git can). Based on the already big 
set of colo commands which duplicates existing bzr commands I see that 
to support push/pull everything there should appear colo-pull and 
colo-push, right?

That said I disagree with you.