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 repository ready? Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:56:19 -0400 Message-ID: <8763goqw70.fsf@canonical.com> References: <87y6xpvyz6.fsf@xemacs.org> <87zli4jcc4.fsf@workhorse.earlhome> <87vdsrjcco.fsf@workhorse.earlhome> <87fxjgb4ud.fsf_-_@red-bean.com> <87eiyy3lag.fsf@notengoamigos.org> <87bpu1451m.fsf@red-bean.com> <874ozs34c6.fsf@notengoamigos.org> <87k58nyih3.fsf@red-bean.com> <87ocxxrjnh.fsf@canonical.com> <874ozp4ld3.fsf@notengoamigos.org> <87vdoou5a2.fsf@canonical.com> <87fxfsr1md.fsf@notengoamigos.org> 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 1240955891 23772 80.91.229.12 (28 Apr 2009 21:58:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:58:11 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Karl Fogel , Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Jason Earl Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 28 23:58:01 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 1LyvJP-00019d-8w for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 23:58:00 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46080 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LyvJO-0004uZ-N8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:57:58 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LyvHt-0004Ve-8S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:56:25 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LyvHr-0004Uf-GK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:56:24 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=40378 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LyvHr-0004UZ-8Q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:56:23 -0400 Original-Received: from adelie.canonical.com ([91.189.90.139]:42912) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LyvHq-0007HH-NJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:56:23 -0400 Original-Received: from hutte.canonical.com ([91.189.90.181]) by adelie.canonical.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 #1 (Debian)) id 1LyvHp-0003Np-0N; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:56:21 +0100 Original-Received: from cpe-24-193-42-111.nyc.res.rr.com ([24.193.42.111] helo=kfogel-work) by hutte.canonical.com with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LyvHo-00044R-Sl; Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:56:20 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87fxfsr1md.fsf@notengoamigos.org> (Jason Earl's message of "Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:59:06 -0600") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.92 (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:110529 Archived-At: Jason Earl writes: > There is a small wrinkle to this continuing bzr saga. I am currently > getting an XML error when I try and create a 0.92-pack repository (the > current default format). It would appear that I can only create a > repository in the shiny new brisbane-core format. > > I've already talked to Ian Clatworthy about this particular bug and it > appears to be a bug in bzr itself and not in bzr fast-import. I just > recently finished filing a bug in launchpad. I really think we should test in brisbane-core anyway, actually. So maybe this wrinkle has a silver lining? (M-x mix-metaphor) > I agree that Emacs doesn't need EOL conversion. The primary advantage > to requiring bzr 1.14 in my opinion is that the new brisbane-core format > is faster pretty much across the board, and that the new repositories > require significantly less space. Another upside is that I am currently > able to create brisbane-core repositories :). Yes :-). > The downside, of course, is that brisbane-core is so new that it is only > available as a preview format in a release candidate of the newest > stable bzr client. > > That seems like a pretty big downside. > > Of course, in a few months bzr 2.0 will be released and the > brisbane-core format should be the default. In our circumstances, it's okay to aim for the future. Bzr keeps to its release schedule pretty reliably, and we know we're not switching until at least Q3 or Q4 anyway. Requiring brisbane-core now will inconvenience just a few people -- us testers. By the time all devs need it, it will be widely available. So I really think it's okay.