Bzr development stopped

[Chris Hecker]

> There's nothing to stop bazaar from keeping additional metadata
> needed to implement this properly, even if the git modules
> responsible for this refuse to change.

But then if somebody interacts with the repo using git and renames
something then the metadata won't be there, or will be out of sync, and
so it's not really a git backend really, etc.

Is the goal simply to use the github ecosystem and whatnot?  Because
besides that, this seems like worse than sticking with a format we
control and is customized for bzr.  I mean, one advantage of working
with a less popular project like bzr is there wouldn't be as much
argument about what direction to take things, where if we were on the
git pack format, you could pretty much kiss making any changes goodbye.
 Given that all my "dvcs 2.0" features that I want require lots of repo
format changes, this would make me personally sad.

Chris


On 2012/11/27 20:04, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Roland Mas writes:
> 
>  > > As far as tracking renames goes, there's a very simple strategy for
>  > > guaranteeing 100% accuracy for git's inference algorithm:
> 
>  >   Except it doesn't really work 100%.
> 
> This sounds like a bug in git, not in the algorithm.  git has the
> information needed to determine that the file was renamed on the
> branch within the scope of the merge algorithm (ie, back to the node
> where the branch separated from the mainline), but it chooses to rely
> on current names instead.
> 
> There's nothing to stop bazaar from keeping additional metadata needed
> to implement this properly, even if the git modules responsible for
> this refuse to change.  (IMHO they should fix this; the content does
> have a new name, and the changes to the old foo should follow the
> content to the new name, so it's a bug according to Linus's "stupid
> content tracker" definition of git.  But they might choose not to.)
> 
>  >   I don't think that worrying is misplaced; it may be unjustified, but I
>  > claim my right to worry until I'm sure I shouldn't :-)  Also, as shown
>  > above, I believe at least some of the nice features of Bazaar would be
>  > lost.  Probably not all, but at least one.
> 
> You're assuming that Bazaar would simply become a pretty face for git.
> I don't think that would be acceptable to anybody[1], so I think
> worrying about it at this stage is indeed misplaced.  I would expect
> that the developers and users would demand that system tests for VCS
> behavior continue to pass before a change in storage would be allowed.
> 
> Footnotes: 
> [1]  Except people who think that git is already perfect.  I challenge
> you to find one such person in the Bazaar community!
> 
> 
>