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

[Jelmer Vernooij]

On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 15:09 -0400, John Szakmeister wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at samba.org> wrote:
> > 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.
I guess that means we'll need "push_merged_revisions = delete-branch" or
something to remove such a branch after pushing it.

There is an open bug about push_merged_revisions not working,
https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/bzr-svn/+bug/486811 . Is that the same
problem you were seeing?

> > 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.
From all I hear it sounds like what you're really after is indeed the
push_merged_revisions setting. Pushing without the merged revisions
implies ghosts and there's no way we can make up information we don't
have, the information you'd like bzr to display in annotate.

> > 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.
IMHO we should fetch all of the revisions for which we have tags. If
that means fetching more revisions than we'd want then the user can
always remove tags remotely and try again.

Cheers,

Jelmer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20100604/a705666b/attachment.pgp