Re: Locks on the Bzr repository

[Uday S Reddy <u.s.reddy@cs.bham.ac.uk>]

Jan Djärv writes:

> You are ignoring the fact that work usually doesn't happen in the bound 
> branch, but in a separate task branch.  We can continue to work there while 
> the bound branch commits.  I don't see much difference.

If there isn't "much difference" then why is push being discouraged?
You are arguing both ways, it seems to me.

If you use separate task branches then, yes, it doesn't make any
difference whether you use a bound branch or unbound.  So, there is no
reason to prefer one over the other.

If you want to work on the main branch rather than task branches, then
it does make an important difference, as Stephen and I have pointed
out.  Here, an unbound main branch is a lot more flexible and it will
reduce the contention on the central repo.

But this part of the thread is in reponse to Eli's post on the 20th,
especially his comment:

Eli Zaretskii writes:

> Plus, pushing many unrelated commits has a drawback as not showing in
> "bzr log" unless you also use the --include-merges (or -n0) switch,
> which makes "bzr log" significantly slower.

If Eli is trying to avoid levels in histories, then he *must be*
working on the main branch.  And, he is stung by the bound main
branch.  Using an unbound main branch will immediately improve
things.

Note that he also raised a logical problem.  If you open a separate
branch for your work, then you don't want to put many unrelated
commits in it.  That will make it appear as if they were related
commits at the top level.  Using bound branches will encourage people
to put unrelated commits in task branches.

Whichever way I look at it, I don't see any upside to using bound
branches, but plenty of downside.  So, I am surprised that emacs-devs
choose this mode of operation.

Cheers,
Uday