On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> If a clone exists with the old organization (v1.8.2) it will prevent the
>>>> new shared repository organization from working, so let's remove this
>>>> repository, which is not used any more.
>>>> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com>
>>> What happens with and without this patch to an existing user from
>>> 1.8.2 days, when she does what?
>> I already explained it would prevent the new shared repository
>> organization from working, so the old organization would be used; the
>> repositories won't be shared.
>>> A sample answer (to show the level of descriptiveness, not the
>>> content, I am epecting) might go something like "Because the
>>> organization is different, it will barf whenever she tries to
>>> incrementally update from the other side. By removing the old one
>>> 1.8.3 contrib/ does not understand, at least we can unstuck her; she
>>> ends up reimporting the whole history, though."
>> Bazaar won't barf, the repositories will be duplicated, so the shared
>> feature won't work.
> But by removing the old incarnation, you are getting rid of the copy
> for which the shared feature will not work, so with patch, "won't
> work" is no longer an issue. Is the user making a trade-off by
> using Git with this patch? What is she losing by removal, if
No. The way repositories work in bazaar is tricky:
Suppose you have a directory like this:
Both the branch and the repository are on the same directory (hence
+*). We have two branches, and two independent repositories.
And then you have a shared repo:
Now we have a single repository shared between two branches.
If there's another repository in-between, neither 'foo' nor 'bar' can
reach 'first', so they are stuck with the repository in 'second',
which is not a shared repository, so they must create their own
repositories, but even if they could use 'second', there still would
be a problem:
We want 'second' and 'third' to share to object tree, but we can't.
This patch would remove the old repository ('second' and 'third') so
we have exactly what we want:
A single bzr repository shared by all the branches and all the repos.
In reality it probably wouldn't be a big deal, because in v1.8.2 users
couldn't clone true bzr repos, but there are some bazaar repos with a
single branch they could clone, and there would be a single duplicated
repo, like this:
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html