Bob Proulx wrote (on Wed, 1 May 2013 at 21:17 -0600): > In theory bzr wasn't upgraded. The package manager thinks it has > 2.1.2-1 installed and there isn't an upgrade for it in Stable so there > shouldn't have been any changes. The log doesn't show any changes to > it. However bzr itself reports 2.6b2 so I know that it is out of sync > with the package manager. I don't know when that was installed.
It used to be 2.5, AFAIK. http://savannah.gnu.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=7240 That was fairly important, since older bzr versions were slower. The last release is 2.5.1, a minor bug fix. 2.6 is still in beta (and seems likely to stay there). I don't know where 2.6b2 would have come from. Maybe staying with 2.5 would have been better. > > I think that may have removed the revision_history attribute that > > bzr-hookless uses. It was deprecated in 2.5: > > > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/bzr-hookless-email/+bug/988195 > > > > has a possible patch. > > Thank you for doing that research! That is very likely the problem. > I will try the patch and see if that fixes things. (Someone at the bazaar mailing list might have a suggested fix if that patch doesn't work.) I believe the more standard way of doing things is the bzr-email plugin. http://packages.qa.debian.org/b/bzr-email.html http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/plugins/en/email-plugin.html But there were some security concerns: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/savannah-hackers/2009-12/msg00009.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/savannah-hackers-public/2010-03/msg00028.html Maybe the concern is that someone with write access to a branch's bazaar.conf could eg set post_commit_mailer to something malicious. I don't know.
