Re: Upgrade repository format for trunk?

From: Matthew Morgan <>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:21:12 -0400

Alex Rousskov wrote:
> On 03/25/2010 02:50 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
>> On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 10:40 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>>> On 03/25/2010 10:06 AM, Kinkie wrote:
>>>> I've noticed that the bzr repository for trunk is based on an
>>>> ancient "pack-0.92" repo format.
>>>> After a few emails with Robert his recommendation is to upgrade the
>>>> repo format to format 2a .
>>>> Does anyone see any reason why this should not be done?
>>> Has Robert promised no bad side-effects?
>> Everyone will *need* bzr 2.0.x, or newer. (2.1.0 recommended,
>> naturally). bzr has moved to a micro-release every month, so 2.0.0 is
>> now 7 months old.
> Sigh. I would rather not upgrade then. I do not know how to move from
> bzr 1.3 to bzr 2.0.x on Red Hat box that I have to use for some of the
> development, and I doubt somebody here would enjoy educating me on that
> process... Besides, even Ubuntu 9.10 only has bzr v2.0.2 by default.
> Thus, we would be cutting it pretty close to bleeding edge for many.
There is an ubuntu ppa for more recent versions of bazaar here: but it looks like they may be
testing versions. The description says the repo contains the " latest
release or release candidate of bzr...". It looks like it has bazaar
2.1.0 for karmic, jaunty, intrepid, and hardy. They don't list a build
for lucid.
> Bzr folks are very good at making lots of releases but the world is
> apparently incapable of moving with the same speed!
>> 2a is much more compact on disk, and faster across the board. But
>> everyone will need to upgrade their own repositories, which can take a
>> bit of time (or delete them and pull anew).
> If nothing else, this will require instruction on how to upgrade the
> everyone repositories. I can support the upgrade once those instructions
> work for me :-).
> Cheers,
> Alex.
Received on Fri Mar 26 2010 - 14:21:25 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Mar 27 2010 - 12:00:09 MDT