[rfc] bzr-colo into core

[Max Kanat-Alexander]

On 03/21/2011 12:48 AM, Martin Pool wrote:
> local commits - I think we should deprecate 'commit --local'; it is
> half-way between a real local branch and a simple checkout, and I
> think many situations where people use them they would be better off
> with one or the other.  We get some bugs and some user confusion from
> the fact that it's neither one nor the other.

	For what it's worth, I appreciate local commits because they are easy
to do when I am in a hurry.

> command synonyms - I made a mistake by leaving many hypothetical
> command names actually in use, such as 'bzr get' for branch.  These
> can only cause confusion, and they prevent us using those words for
> other operations.  We ought to remove them.

	Some synonyms should go, yes, but any that ease transition to bzr from
other VCSes should probably stay (such as "co" and "checkout").

> distinctions between lightweight and heavyweight checkouts vs bound
> branches; I think probably we want a checkout (just a tree plus a
> branch) and then a bound branch.

	All of our developers currently use heavyweight checkouts that are
bound branches (to the remote repository).

	Also, we ship a .bzr directory in our tarball so that people can do
basic development tasks if they need to on their installation, but we
don't want to ship the whole bzr history (it's a difference between an
18MB download and a 3MB download).

	So as far as I can tell, we need the existing model, here.

	-Max
-- 
http://www.bugzillasource.com/
Competent, Friendly Bugzilla, Perl, and IT Services