Rewriting Ubuntu branches

[James Westby]

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:39:23 +1100, Martin Pool <mbp at canonical.com> wrote:
> 2009/12/15 James Westby <jw+debian at jameswestby.net>:
> > On Mon Dec 14 01:55:06 +0000 2009 Martin Pool wrote:
> >> In general whenever we're decorating commands we should ask whether
> >> there is a more appropriate place to do the extension.  I think here
> >> perhaps it would be better to add a hook called when an operation is
> >> going to fail due to divergence, giving it the chance to clean it up.
> >> That could be useful to other people.
> >
> > That sounds like a good idea to me.
> 
> <https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/bzr/+bug/496764> currently Medium,
> but can go up or down.

Thanks.

> >> It sounds like this is going towards a more general 'replaces'
> >> relationship between revisions, which ought to be treated as part of
> >> the merge graph but generally not shown in logs etc?
> >
> > I think that's one way of looking at it. Are you proposing that we
> > implement such a thing?
> 
> It's been discussed before.  I think we could implement it.  I think
> we could implement it, again perhaps by adding extension points so we
> don't need to make a heavy commitment to having it in the core format
> until we have some experience with it.
> 
> Where do you think these two fit in priority relative to other udd things?

These are critical path tasks for phase 3, so high. The difficulty
is that a lot of things we discuss are external to the roadmap, and
so don't get a natural priority based on that. These are going to be
focused tasks from me though. Note that if I implement this I doubt
I will be adding a new relationship, as that runs deeper than I feel
is needed for this use case.

Thanks,

James