Bazaar Mercurial Plugin to access BitBucket

[Barry Warsaw]

On Oct 24, 2011, at 10:15 PM, Martin Geisler wrote:

>That's actually the real reason many people prefer co-located branches:
>they work on something like OpenOffice where a working copy is 2 GB and
>so it's not fun at all to make a new local clone. Switching between two
>branches can be cheap even with a huge repository since you only need to
>touch the files that are really different between the two revisions.

I totally get that for code bases like OpenOffice where making a new local
clone takes a long time.  That's the one use case I think colo-branches would
be useful.  Related is where rebuilding the whole project from scratch also
takes forever, and if you trust your build system to accurately rebuild what's
changed, then colo-branches could also be useful.

>I would actually say that Mercurial still has a modest to strong bias
>towards branching-by-directory. Mostly because it's ackward to push and
>pull if you have several feature branches and you don't want to move
>them all.
>
>Mercurial will also remind you to merge whenever you have more than one
>head -- and you'll have more than one head if you use bookmarks to track
>your feature branches. Pushing those require -f and that scares people.
>
>For me, the nice part of Mercurial is that you can do in-repo-branching
>or branching-by-directory as you like -- and it's all part of the same
>simple and uniform model.
>
>So you can have a two-branch-per-repo strategy if you like :-)

Thanks for the information!
-Barry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20111024/8d7b1800/attachment-0001.pgp>