treeless branches + lightweight co-s or colocated branches

[John Arbash Meinel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 6/19/2012 9:47 AM, Gour wrote:
...


> 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?
> 

Personally, treeless repo + lightweight checkouts is an ideal workflow
for me.

The main benefit is flexibility. You can have multiple checkouts
pointing at the same 'farm' of branches. I use this a lot if
developing multiple features. You can have switched to a new feature
and are not ready to commit, but another one got a review and needs a
tweak before submitting it.

Main downside is that it is not the default setup, and it isn't really
easy to have a simple "set up my work in this manner". You need a
place for the repo (which is pretty user specific), and then a place
for the trees (also user specific), etc.

> 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?
> 
> Is bzr-colo plugin obsolete now?
> 
> 
> Sincerely, Gour
> 

It doesn't change the storage format, and the branches and structure
is actually backwards compatible. (older bzr can commit/pull/push/etc
in a colo setup, it just doesn't know how to switch to individual
branches, etc.)

John
=:->


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk/hhSsACgkQJdeBCYSNAAMNTACcDf1bI2uEhBCBu7PoSO4U5WSz
IGQAn1eeC8NJDHhEr6yjNE3G69bYa0kg
=otCC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----