bzr-svn, round 2 (was: Re: Sharing experiences...)

[John Szakmeister]

On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at samba.org> wrote:
[snip]
> Thanks for writing up your experiences with bzr-svn in such great
> detail! I hope we can fix some of them and that it's ok if I reply to
> some of the issues you raise in your last blog post here.

Not a problem!

> Setting push_merged_revisions = True will make bzr-svn push all
> revisions into the remote repository. This will prevent any ghosts from
> appearing (but requires you use a repository layout that bzr-svn
> understands).

I've tried that in the past (you told me about it 6 or 7 months ago).
I found that didn't work well for me.  It pushed up the revisions,
committed the merge into the mainline, but I still ended up with a
ghost somehow. :-(  I believe I spoke to you about quite some time
ago, but I probably never filed a bug on it.  I'll try it again, since
it has been a while.  IIRC, it leaves the branch up there after it's
been pushed.  It'd be nice to have an option to delete it.  We're
pretty persnickety about removing merged branches, otherwise we'd have
hundreds of them, and most would be uninteresting.

> There seems to be some movement on the annotate with ghosts issue,
> Philip Peitsch has been working on a fix. I've linked his branch to the
> bug.

I've been watching that branch, and would like to try it out.  I'm a
bit fearful of the outcome though.  I'd really like for annotate to
show the merge revision's information rather than question marks about
when a change was made and who made it.  This is kind of the same
argument as the log <path> stuff.  I really want to know any
information you have rather than skipping over an interesting piece of
history because you don't have the full branch of information behind
it.

> There is an open bug about the tags issue that you might want to link
> to: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/bzr-svn/+bug/309682 . However we
> decide to deal with it should be easy to fix in bzr-svn, but there
> doesn't seem to be consensus yet as to whether we should or should not
> fetch tags that are not in the branch ancestry.

I can definitely see that both ways. One of the things I love about
using Bazaar is it's making it easier for me to grok a code base and
what its evolution has been.  In that light, I'd really like to see
those tags resolved or not there at all.  I think we had a similar
discussion recently about that on Bazaar itself too.

Thanks for taking the time to respond Jelmer.  As I said in the post,
you've been awesome to work with, and I really appreciate that.

-John