[rfc] bzr-colo into core

[Alexander Belchenko]

Jelmer Vernooij пишет:
> bzr-colocated is really simple (roughly 200 lines of code vs 3000 in
> bzr-colo) as it relies on most of the infrastructure already being in
> bzrlib. It doesn't add any extra commands for dealing with colocated
> branches but relies on the existing ones. bzr-colo adds its own set of
> commands that known about colocated branches. 

Does bzr-colocated has an equivalent of colo-branches to list all 
available branches and highlight the active one?

The size of bzr-colo codebase is bigger because it provides many new 
commands and help. Even qbzr integration.

So if I'd trim it down, I'd say there are only 3 must-have commands to 
work with bzr-colo with a minimum of comfort: colo-ify, colo-fixup and 
colo-branches, and support for `colo:` path aliases. That's the basis. 
How big it will be?

> bzr-colo's approach is more pragmatic: it actually works with released
> versions of Bazaar and doesn't require users to run bzr.dev or convert
> their control directories to a format that is only usable by other users
> who also have the plugin installed. On the other hand, it is less well
> well integrated with the existing bzrlib API - you can't open a bzr-colo
> branch using the standard bzrlib API, you can't use the bzr-colo
> commands to access "colocated" branches in git or hg repositories and it
> adds quite a lot of new bzr subcommands that duplicate existing
> commands.

I'm not quite agree when you say that bzr-colo added a lot of bzr 
subcommands duplicating core behavior. I see there is only few of them: 
  colo-branch (to create a new branch), colo-checkout (to create a new 
checkout), colo-fetch (to setup the local copy of the project). Other 
commands either colo-specific or work as useful helpers.

So, in general Jelmer is right, but some details are different in my 
view as a regular user of bzr-colo.