utopic branch

[Gunnar Hjalmarsson]

On 2014-04-25 12:59, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
> On 04/24/2014 11:59 PM, Kevin Godby wrote:
>> Previously, each new branch has carried with it the entire history
>> of the previous branches. This leads to quite large repositories
>> that take quite a while to download.
>> 
>> Should we instead create a fresh branch and copy over the extant 
>> files, abandoning the revision history?
> 
> That's strikingly backwards and defeats the entire point of revision
> control.
> 
> I would recommend following the best practice of branching what's
> been released (14.04) and maintaining that in a new series, while
> trunk is always trunk and up to date,.

Unlike many (most?) other projects, there is currently no series named
"trunk" in ubuntu-docs. During the trusty development cycle we have been
working on a trusty series branch, which was branched from the saucy
series branch at the *beginning* of the trusty dev. cycle.

https://code.launchpad.net/ubuntu-docs

So there is a history of doing it the other way around, so to speak.

> Maintaining history is pretty much the point of revision control.
> Truncating history is wrong and gets you nothing.

Does it matter much as long as you save the history in other branches?
(Which I take for granted is Kevin's intention.)

> If you don't want the entire history copied locally, you can check
> out only recent revisions.

Well, yes.

On thing to remember as regards ubuntu-docs is that the typical docs
contributor is not a bzr wizard. On the contrary, the career as a docs
contributor typically starts with learning the bzr basics. For that
reason it's desirable to simplify things as much as possible. The option
you mention does not fit in well with that goal. ;)

-- 
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj