Using bazaar (baz)

[Rob Browning]

J=E9r=F4me Marant <jerome.marant@free.fr> writes:

> I think we can use bazaar instead of tla: it is fully compatible
> with tla, its CLI is simpler, and it brings some optimizations.
>
> Currently, only 1.1.1 is in unstable. 1.2 was released recently,
> I grabbed it from http://bazaar.canonical.com/releases/debs/

Hmm.  While baz sounds interesting, I had been planning to wait a
while, until (hopefully) it became clearer which tool might be the
better long term choice.

One difficulty I see is that (if I understand correctly) baz is not
backward compatible with tla.  i.e. once you start using baz on your
archive, only baz will be able to access it.

By the way, did you see the response to my question on g-a-u?
Apparently the situation I was concerned about is not considered
unusual, but tla's star-merge is a *very* specific algorithm, and is
not designed to cross tag boundaries.  In such a case, you should just
use --reference.  (I also (re-)read that tla's star-merge also won't
work right in the case of cherry-picking or if we both star-merge and
commit from each other at the "same time").  Anyway, I'm quite glad to
finally understand the issue.

So if we did want to continue with tla, our normal process would be to
just star merge back and forth, and either tag off each other's new
branches, or use star-merge --reference if we created the new branches
independently.

With respect to baz, do you have a good feeling for the state of
affairs between tla and baz?  Is baz use very widespread (relative to
tla use)?  I'm not necessarily opposed to switching to baz, but I do
wish I understood the state of affairs and the likely futures of the
two tools a bit better.

--=20
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG starting 2002-11-03 =3D 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592  F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 7=
3A4