On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 19:41 -0600, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> >> This would make the memory leaks less of
> >> a problem, and it should make the scheduling of code imports a bit
> >> fairer, since large branches would not keep the system busy for a long
> >> time.
> >
> > It would also need some
Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 19:41 -0600, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
This would make the memory leaks less of
a problem, and it should make the scheduling of code imports a bit
fairer, since large branches would not keep the system busy for a long
time.
>>> It
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
...
> Well, yes, I guess that would be possible. It would also be possible
> for bzr-git or even bzr to do this as well -- currently we have real
> problems with the amount of memory bzr serve processes use...
#1) I added '-Dhpss' so we can figure o
2009/12/18 Martin Pool :
> +1
>
> The input data is messy enough that we may never get it to zero
> failures, so maybe "done" is a poor word compared to "enough":
Tim pointed out something I should have remembered: we could just
scope this to the imports of the top 100 Ubuntu packages. If say 30
2009/12/18 John Arbash Meinel :
> James Westby wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:19:32 +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
>>> My hypothesis is that we (Canonical's Bazaar team) will get to grips
>>> with UDD better if there is a tighter medium-term focus.
>>>
>>> The key question is whether vcs-imports is t
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:13:56 +0100, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> Hi James,
Hi,
Thanks for the information, this is invaluable.
> Le lundi 14 décembre 2009 à 00:48 +, James Westby a écrit :
> > I wanted to split this out of the large mail so that we could complete
> > a design of how this would
Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 11:36 -0500, Francis J. Lacoste wrote:
>> On December 16, 2009, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
>>> Francis J. Lacoste wrote:
On December 15, 2009, Martin Pool wrote:
> I just had a good talk with James about what the Bazaar team could do
> to h
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:39:23 +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
> 2009/12/15 James Westby :
> > On Mon Dec 14 01:55:06 + 2009 Martin Pool wrote:
> >> In general whenever we're decorating commands we should ask whether
> >> there is a more appropriate place to do the extension. I think here
> >> perhap
On 12/17/2009 04:00 PM, James Westby wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:19:32 +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
>> My hypothesis is that we (Canonical's Bazaar team) will get to grips
>> with UDD better if there is a tighter medium-term focus.
>>
>> The key question is whether vcs-imports is that thing, or n
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
James Westby wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:19:32 +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
>> My hypothesis is that we (Canonical's Bazaar team) will get to grips
>> with UDD better if there is a tighter medium-term focus.
>>
>> The key question is whether vcs-impo
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:19:32 +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
> My hypothesis is that we (Canonical's Bazaar team) will get to grips
> with UDD better if there is a tighter medium-term focus.
>
> The key question is whether vcs-imports is that thing, or not.
>
> If we do make imports that one important
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
>> "jam" == John Arbash Meinel writes:
>
> jam> Nope. You still have to merge it into your top thread and commit
> that.
> jam> So the history in the top thread is the same.
>
> Hmmm, for me, history == graph, the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> It's all nice and neat and I can very easily find
> exactly the changes between any two of those tasks.
So, to have a fair comparison with a branch-based approach, let's
conside
> "jam" == John Arbash Meinel writes:
jam> Nope. You still have to merge it into your top thread and commit that.
jam> So the history in the top thread is the same.
Hmmm, for me, history == graph, the graphs are different, so the
histories are different.
trunk -- my changes -- trunk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
>> "Aaron" == Aaron Bentley writes:
> Aaron> In both cases, you are merging the same revision into
> Aaron> the top thread.
>
> No.
In both cases, you are merging from a mirror of trunk into the top
thread. In the
> "Aaron" == Aaron Bentley writes:
Aaron> Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
>>> "jam" == John Arbash Meinel writes:
jam> Actually, those produce the exact same history.
>>
>> No.
>> No. A base thread for trunk were I can pull and feature thread on
>> top is enough.
On Dec 17, 2009, at 8:40 AM, Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
>> "barry" == Barry Warsaw writes:
>
>
>
>barry> loomnon-loom
>barry>
>barry> bzr down-thread rocketfuel bzr merge ../devel
>barry> bzr pull
On Dec 16, 2009, at 4:58 PM, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> There are a lot of similarities. Some more differences are:
> - - automatic storing/restoring of uncommitted changes with switch-pipe.
> - - uncommitted changes in another pipe can be merged.
These are very definitely advantages of pipes.
> I
On Dec 16, 2009, at 4:12 PM, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> If we are discussing "what is an ideal tool to be building", creating
> something that makes it easier to create a patch file doesn't seem ideal.
Wholeheartedly agree. Patches are dead things, branches are alive.
-Barry
--
ubuntu-distr
On Dec 16, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Aaron Bentley wrote:
>> I do miss this when working on non-loom branches, but of course a 'bzr merge
>> ../devel' is the moral equivalent. It doesn't /feel/ the same though:
>>
>> loomnon-loom
>>
>>
BTW, this thread reminds me of a workflow wart that I'd like to get some advice
on.
Let's say I have a branch or loom or whatever, and I merge in all updates on
the trunk that have happened since I started my branch. I get conflicts. I
have to resolve these conflicts, but doing so may entail
On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 12:02 +, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 11:36 -0500, Francis J. Lacoste wrote:
> > On December 16, 2009, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> > > Francis J. Lacoste wrote:
> > > > On December 15, 2009, Martin Pool wrote:
> > > >> I just had a good talk with James ab
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
>> "jam" == John Arbash Meinel writes:
>
> jam> Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
> >>> "barry" == Barry Warsaw writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> barry> loomnon-loom
> barry>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
>> "jam" == John Arbash Meinel writes:
> jam> Actually, those produce the exact same history.
>
> No.
> No. A base thread for trunk were I can pull and feature thread on
> top is enough.
>
> In one case I *pull* trunk
> "jam" == John Arbash Meinel writes:
jam> Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
>>> "barry" == Barry Warsaw writes:
>>
>>
>>
barry> loomnon-loom
barry>
barry> bzr down-thread rocketfuel bzr mer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
>> "barry" == Barry Warsaw writes:
>
>
>
> barry> loomnon-loom
> barry>
> barry> bzr down-thread rocketfuel bzr merge ../devel
> ba
> "barry" == Barry Warsaw writes:
barry> loomnon-loom
barry>
barry> bzr down-thread rocketfuel bzr merge ../devel
barry> bzr pullbzr commit -m'Merge rocketfuel'
barry> bzr u
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 11:36 -0500, Francis J. Lacoste wrote:
> On December 16, 2009, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> > Francis J. Lacoste wrote:
> > > On December 15, 2009, Martin Pool wrote:
> > >> I just had a good talk with James about what the Bazaar team could do
> > >> to help UDD move forward.
28 matches
Mail list logo
