Moving Away From CVS: A Vote

Max Kanat-Alexander mkanat at
Sun Sep 6 08:45:58 UTC 2009

On 09/05/2009 10:01 PM, Bill Barry wrote:
> I seem to recall some dirstate problem that we had to change how our
> server was working because we couldn't push to it. A new version came
> out about a week after we started evaluating bazaar and we decided to
> upgrade and found that we couldn't push to it. I think it was 1.13 or
> something like that. We gave up pretty quickly after that.

	Hmm. It's possible there was a problem with dirstate that I never ran 
into. At this point most repos are in the packs format (same as git 
uses) and it seems to be working totally fine.

> Every release (and there has been almost 1 a month for the past 2 years)
> seems to fix at least a dozen bugs. How exactly does there happen to be
> a new bug fixed every other day on average?

	I'd say that probably a lot of what's showing up there is just issues 
found in Release Candidates. Not sure, though. I haven't encountered a 
serious issue in bzr in a while.

> Wasn't it you that wrote the post about sucking less every release?

	Hahaha, it was. :-)

> No it doesn't have bound branches; I'll give you that too. I don't think
> it would be that difficult to write as an extension. [snip]

	Fair enough. I think bound branches is how we'd recommend users check 
out Bugzilla code, though, so that they could do "bzr up" and it would 
"just work" pretty nicely.

	As a result of having bound branches, bzr also has "lightweight 
checkouts", which are just a copy of the working tree without the entire 
history, and a pointer back to the main repo for operations that require 
the history. Of course, I've never used lightweight checkouts, and I 
don't know anybody who does. :-)

> My bound mode extension can be found here:

	Cool. I will look into that if we go with Hg (though the way the voting 
is going bzr seems pretty likely).

> It will be much easier to maintain a fork than it currently is to
> maintain a single giant patch. I pity what Greg has to go through each
> time he attempts to upgrade Testopia. That is a lot of work (which
> wouldn't be nearly so difficult if it was easier to keep up with the
> changes).

	Yeah, I wouldn't want to maintain Testopia without bzr, myself, if I 
were a maintainer. Of course, I think the "Testopia For Bugzilla 3.4" 
may not involve a patch to Bugzilla at all. We'll see. :-)

 > His latest news was a bit unsettling as far as the future for
> Testopia goes.

	Yeah, agreed, but it's possible we'll see some community member come 
and pick it up.

Competent, Friendly Bugzilla and Perl Services. Everything Else, too.

More information about the developers mailing list