Re: Locks on the Bzr repository

["Óscar Fuentes" <ofv@wanadoo.es>]

Uday S Reddy <u.s.reddy@cs.bham.ac.uk> writes:

[snip]

> It seems to me that the closeness to the previous workflow using CVS
> was perhaps the overriding criterion for the authors of the
> recommended workflow.  The technical merits and demerits were probably
> not at the top of the scale.

Not really (for the workflow advertised by Stephen and Karl.)

At the time (and possibly still now) rebasing was not the soundest part
of bzr. So the remaining workflows were "merge+push" and
"pull". "merge+push" have the serious inconveniences described on my
other post on this thread. So Stephen went for the remaining one:
"pull", which is simulated with bound branches. When a developer does
"merge+commit" on his local branch bound to upstream, it is the
equivalent of `pull' on the remote branch.

> Having always used unbounded branches, I came into this discussion
> wanting to learn why bound branches are being used by you guys.  I
> still don't know why.  But I can see that it makes you feel a lot more
> comfortable. 

It is not about confort, but about the lesser evil while working with
bzr.