Alex Rousskov wrote:
On 03/25/2010 02:50 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 10:40 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote:
On 03/25/2010 10:06 AM, Kinkie wrote:
I've noticed that the bzr repository for trunk is based on an
ancient "pack-0.92" repo format.
After a few emails with Robert his recommendation is to upgrade the
repo format to format 2a .
Does anyone see any reason why this should not be done?
Has Robert promised no bad side-effects?
Everyone will *need* bzr 2.0.x, or newer. (2.1.0 recommended,
naturally). bzr has moved to a micro-release every month, so 2.0.0 is
now 7 months old.
Sigh. I would rather not upgrade then. I do not know how to move from
bzr 1.3 to bzr 2.0.x on Red Hat box that I have to use for some of the
development, and I doubt somebody here would enjoy educating me on that
process... Besides, even Ubuntu 9.10 only has bzr v2.0.2 by default.
Thus, we would be cutting it pretty close to bleeding edge for many.
There is an ubuntu ppa for more recent versions of bazaar here:
https://launchpad.net/~bzr/+archive/ppa but it looks like they may be
testing versions. The description says the repo contains the " latest
release or release candidate of bzr...". It looks like it has bazaar
2.1.0 for karmic, jaunty, intrepid, and hardy. They don't list a build
for lucid.
Bzr folks are very good at making lots of releases but the world is
apparently incapable of moving with the same speed!
2a is much more compact on disk, and faster across the board. But
everyone will need to upgrade their own repositories, which can take a
bit of time (or delete them and pull anew).
If nothing else, this will require instruction on how to upgrade the
everyone repositories. I can support the upgrade once those instructions
work for me :-).
Cheers,
Alex.
