Bazaar Mercurial Plugin to access BitBucket

[Barry Warsaw]

On Oct 21, 2011, at 04:13 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

>Barry Warsaw writes:
>
> > * Sane revision numbers.  Yes, I know why hashes are there, and all three
> >   dvcs's have them, but they are very much user *un*friendly.  I like that
> >   Bazaar generally makes them a hidden implementation detail rather than a
> >   constant visible thorn.
>
>This depends on the "distinguished mainline" philosophy.  Since most
>bzr users like that philosophy a lot, it's no problem at all, and works
>really well.  See also "floppy mainline" below.

That's a good point.  I do like the "distinguished mainline" philosophy since
I think it's a great marriage between the best of the centralized model
(e.g. Subversion) and dvcs.  In practice, it works great for all the projects
I've contributed to w/Bazaar, modulo the merge direction caveat you mention.

>Colocated branches may make it easier to push new heads, but the real
>issue is concurrent development.  Emacs also found it needs a "sorry
>but you're not allowed to push that" policy although it is a bzr shop.

I have a vague feeling that colocated branches are preferred by folks working
on large compiled language code bases, but personally, I don't see the
attraction or advantage of them.

>Not "seems", a standalone Mercurial branch is a standalone branch in
>the same way as in Bazaar.  And that's the default for Mercurial.  You
>have to do something quite deliberate to make it use colocated
>branches.  Python just did something not very useful IMO in choosing
>named branches for organizing its public Mercurial repos, more or less
>forcing multiple heads on all users.

Interesting point.  What I got out of that discussion (possibly
misunderstanding) is that it was a more natural fit to Mercurial's biases[1].
But maybe it was just the best fit for those biases based on the workflows
expected in Python, e.g. fast-forward merges among versions in a major version
(e.g. 3.1->3.2, but not 2.7->3.x).  The whole null-merge requirement drives me
crazy, but I suppose that's all just a result of the specific choices made for
the Python project.  It's the only large hg repo I interact with on a daily
basis, so my world-view of hg is admittedly skewed by it.

-Barry

[1] I'm not dissing Mercurial for having biases, all software does! :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20111021/9f6c687a/attachment.pgp>