[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: centralized bzr (Re: Successful and unsuccessful Debian development tools)

>>>>> "Adeodato" == Adeodato  <"=?utf-8?B?U2ltw7M=?=" <dato@net.com.org.es>> writes:

    Adeodato> But if you have a set of equal developers, bzr can be
    Adeodato> also used in a very similar way to Subversion, where all
    Adeodato> commits go to a central repository, and nobody has to
    Adeodato> collect them. It's just a matter of setting up a
    Adeodato> directory somewhere with the appropriate write
    Adeodato> permissions, and say "This is our canonical archive, the
    Adeodato> uploader will include what it's in there, nothing more,
    Adeodato> nothing less".

For documentation on checkouts and bound branches, see



However, I am not convinced the following paragraph in the first
page is correct:

"Getting a checkout is generally faster than making a copy of a
branch. The catch though is that whenever the checkout needs to look
at the RCS data it will do so by accessing the branch. This holds true
even if the branch is on some distant network that you accessed over
the internet."

To me, this sounds like it might be talking about a "lightweight
checkout", as I believe a checkout is a complete copy of the branch,
and network access is only required for commits or updates. "Bound
branches in bzr take the place of remote 'checkouts' in systems like
CVS or SVN and we refer to them as 'checkouts'. (bzr also supports
"lightweight checkouts", which are like local checkouts, and aren't
branches at all.)"

Can anyone confirm/deny?

My central dislike of bzr is bugs like:


...which unfortunately makes it unusable for some of my applications.
Brian May <bam@debian.org>

Reply to: