Call for testing of colocated branch support in

Andrew Bennetts andrew at
Mon Feb 20 12:12:49 UTC 2012

John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> I think the original problem was Robert didn't want to create a branch
> at 'tip' revision, when the repo didn't have the data yet. Which is
> fair enough, though I think creating the Branch at NULL_REVISION, and
> then updating it to 'tip' when the fetch finishes is probably a good
> way to go.
> It would really simplify the fetch code, so that we wouldn't have
> separate fetch logic for first creation vs updating.

It could perhaps also be a (small) step towards supporting interruptible
pushes, where the Branch's last revision is periodically updated to what
we have pushed so far.  Perhaps that isn't the behaviour we'd like,
although it seems intuitive: if you break the lock, you get a
branch that is part of the way to the revision that you were trying to

Anyway, +1 on just creating a Branch at NULL_REVISION.  It certainly
won't be a worse experience than what happens now.


More information about the bazaar mailing list