On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 15:29 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote: > 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.
Yes, 2.0.0 was relatively recent. > Bzr folks are very good at making lots of releases but the world is > apparently incapable of moving with the same speed! Well, we try to balance things; and we expect to stay with 2a for quite some time as a default - probably several years, as we did with 1.0. > > 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 :-). http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/bzr.2.1/en/upgrade-guide/index.html -Rob
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
