Help promoting Bazaar

[Chris Hecker]

Right, but A and B at the beginning have two complete copies of the 
branch, but when they're reconfigured into the shared repo, does it do 
the right thing and reduce the space occupied?  I should probably just 
test this, but replying to an email is easier.  :)

Chris


On 2010/07/15 15:47, Talden wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Chris Hecker<checker at d6.com>  wrote:
>>
>> Ah, cool.  I assume it doesn't "coagulate" branches reconfigured like this?
>>   In other words, if I have A, and then branch A to B, and then reconfigure A
>> into C like below, and then reconfigure B into C as well, it's not going to
>> be the same as having branched A to B inside of C, will it?
>
> I assume here you mean something like
>
> CMD>  bzr init A
> CMD>  bzr branch A B
> CMD>  bzr init-repo C
> CMD>  mv A C; bzr reconfigure --use-shared C/A
> CMD>  mv B C; bzr reconfigure --use-shared C/B
>
> Branches A and B now use the shared repo C and are related in the same
> way they were before - A is the parent of B.
>
> If the shared repo were tree-less you'd still need to explicitly
> remove the trees of A and B - reconfiguring them to use the shared
> repo doesn't remove the working trees since those branches are allowed
> to have working trees in a treeless shared-repo - they just aren't
> created by default. EG 'bzr branch C/A C/foo'.  foo won't get a
> working tree but will use the shared-repo.
>
> --
> Talden
>