treeless branches + lightweight co-s or colocated branches

[Jelmer Vernooij]

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 09:47:18AM +0200, Gour wrote:
> I'm new (old) Bazaar user who (finally) decided, after playing or using
> most of DVCS - darcs, bzr, monotone, hg, fossil (git excluded), to
> settle on bzr finding it the most intuitive & safe option for ourselves
> and potential contributors for our open-source project coming from
> Windows/Mac platform.

> Yesterday we experimented with a shared repo + treeless branches and then
> using lightweight checkouts and switch-ing between different branches.

> It's very nice setup and now we use e.g. treeless repo + lightweight
> checkouts for a running programs to keep their config data under dvcs,
> but having repo in the other place.

> Now, I wonder how does this setup (treeless branches + switching
> lightweight checkouts compare with colocated branches?

> Any pro/cons?

> First thing I notice that the latter requires using new storage format
> and second, I see that 2.6 docs
> (http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/developers/colocated-branches.html) use
> future tense in several places, so we wonder how much is the 'colocated
> branches' feature complete in the current bzr and what to expect in 2.6?
Note that this is a document in the development specs, not really end
user documentation. You can just use the 2a format for colocated
branches though, there is no need for the development-colo format.

I wouldn't recommend colocated branches for production use yet at this
point. The API and disk support is there, but the UI isn't very well
polished yet. There isn't any documentation yet for this reason too.

Cheers,

Jelmer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20120619/e153c019/attachment.pgp>