Aaron Bentley wrote: > Max Bowsher wrote: >> Hmm... it would be nifty if "bzr init-repo" would create a repository >> with format "undecided" which would lazily transform into pack-0.92 or >> 2a depending on the rich-root-ness of the first revision being entered >> into it :-) > > "undecided" repositories would encourage people to stick with pack-0.92, > and we don't want that. Having different inventory models in play just > leads to pain and format confusion. > > With the release of bzr 2.0, we signalled that everyone should be using > rich-root formats from now on. Our default format, 2a, is rich-root, > and has no non-rich variant, deliberately because it's reasonable to > have a watershed at 2.0. > > You should use 2a if you don't need to be compatible with bzr versions > older than 1.16. If you need to be compatible with anything since 1.0, > you can use rich-root-pack.
It's not me making the choice of rich-root or not. The current situation means that EVERY TIME I try to start looking at a new project, I have to first check whether they are rich-root or not BEFORE I can run "bzr init-repo". Which is a hideous user experience. Max.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
