treeless branches + lightweight co-s or colocated branches

Jelmer Vernooij jelmer at samba.org
Wed Jun 20 12:15:58 UTC 2012


On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 03:36:05AM -0700, Mark Grandi wrote:
> How is this different then having a shared repository locally with
> different branches inside of it? Just the fact that you don't have the
> entire history / don't need a shared repository?

It is mostly the same as having the branches under a shared repository
living in .bzr/ and only having a single working tree. It's very
similar to the way git works, where you have a single repository, a
single working tree and multiple branches in one directory.

Cheers,

Jelmer

> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:09 AM, John Arbash Meinel
> <john at arbash-meinel.com>wrote:

> > -----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-----



-- 



More information about the bazaar mailing list