From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Karl Fogel Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Bzr switch Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:26:33 -0400 Message-ID: <87ws6wnlza.fsf@canonical.com> References: <87hby0rgs1.fsf@canonical.com> Reply-To: Karl Fogel NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1246220819 12453 80.91.229.12 (28 Jun 2009 20:26:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:26:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Andreas Schwab , Jason Earl , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jun 28 22:26:51 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1ML0xc-0008WF-4H for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:26:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56834 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ML0xb-0008VE-J2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:26:47 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1ML0xX-0008V9-CR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:26:43 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1ML0xT-0008Uv-AI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:26:42 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=41014 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ML0xT-0008Us-58 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:26:39 -0400 Original-Received: from adelie.canonical.com ([91.189.90.139]:46664) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1ML0xS-0005MK-Jb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:26:38 -0400 Original-Received: from hutte.canonical.com ([91.189.90.181]) by adelie.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 #1 (Debian)) id 1ML0xQ-0006rQ-6m; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:26:36 +0100 Original-Received: from cpe-72-229-5-106.nyc.res.rr.com ([72.229.5.106] helo=floss) by hutte.canonical.com with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ML0xP-0005Wt-Ub; Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:26:36 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:55:13 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:111789 Archived-At: Daniel Clemente writes: > What will happen when older clients try to connect? > Even if they are asked to upgrade to 1.16, this may be a good > thing. (Upgrading is as easy as: bzr branch lp:bzr; cd bzr; ./bzr). I don't know if they get a nice error telling them to upgrade, or a not-so-nice error. I suspect the former, but haven't tested it yet. The solution is the same either way: upgrade to 1.16.1 or higher. For our purposes, we should just publish that pulling Emacs requires Bazaar >= 1.16.1 and tell people to upgrade if necessary. 1.17 will be out very soon, so that will probably be what we recommend, actually. (Jason and Andreas, if you want to make a new testing branch now using the "--2a" format, that would be great...) > Nice to see some dates. > > Some questions from the links I found in [1] : > - The Savannah ticket about this is still open: [2] Is Savannah > officially ready? I think Savannah will need to upgrade Bazaar to get loggerhead (web-viewing) support for the new branch format. > - There seem to be still open Bazaar bugs/improvements with the tag > emacs-adoption: [3]. Are they blocking? None of those look like blockers to me. > I saw that some Bazaar bugs which affected Emacs were solved due to > your work; thanks. Well, I can't take credit for the coding (except for one bug), but on behalf of the real Bazaar developers: you're welcome! :-) Stefan Monnier writes: > Actually, I don't have a preference for that format. If I had > a preference it'd be for the 1.9 format. I strongly recommend the new format. It is faster and smaller, in ways that will make a difference for a large, deep-history project like Emacs. In particular, 'log -v' times are faster, though I wish they were faster still. > But before we can switch over we still need a test repository set up on > Savannh so we can make sure that Savannah is working correctly > (including loggerhead, the commit mailing-list, ...). Yes. Again, I'd like to just give Bazaar 1.16.1 a couple of weeks more testing -- I don't want to ask the Savannah admins to upgrade only to have to ask them to do it again shortly afterwards. I'm keeping an eye on our Bazaar testing (for the Launchpad.net open-sourcing), and will come back and ping the Savannah admins very soon. No objection to starting testing earlier, of course! Just in terms of my own schedule, and a desire to avoid doing work twice, I'm planning to wait a couple of weeks before making any noises at Savannah. If anyone wants to take this and run with it sooner, though, I'm all in favor. However, we can start testing a branch by itself before then. (See above note to Jason and Andreas.) -Karl The references from Daniel Clemente's mail: > [1] http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/EmacsBzrSwitchover > [2] http://savannah.gnu.org/support/index.php?106612 > [3] https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/bzr/+bugs?field.searchtext=&orderby=-importance&assignee_option=any&field.assignee=&field.bug_reporter=&field.bug_supervisor=&field.bug_commenter=&field.subscriber=&field.omit_dupes.used=&field.omit_dupes=on&field.has_patch.used=&field.has_cve.used=&field.tag=emacs-adoption&field.tags_combinator=ANY&search=Search