don't say "format: unnamed", give a sensible short name

I think a concise alternative would be something like "format: dirstate/pack-0.92" in this case.

A workaround in the meantime is to use "bzr info -v" to find out what an "unnamed" format actually is.

Btw, I think in this case in your description you are probably *also* experiencing a separate bug, bug 196080, which is that "unnamed" is also be reported when using bzr+ssh:// URLs.

But this bug is still real: combinations like format 5 branches in pack-0.92 repos do report as "unnamed".

A trivial improvement might be to call it "mixed" rather than "unnamed". It's still not very helpful (and probably not sufficient to consider this bug fixed), but it is probably less alarming.

From a user's PoV who is not involved in technical details under the hood I prefer your suggestion from comment #1. In the context of shared repos I think that it is safe to say that the user expects repos inside a shared repo inherit the format of their master/parent. Therefore I feel the format name of the repo should reflect this. So things like "<format shared repo>/<format repo>" would be nice and helpful imho.

As a user, I prefer my suggestion from #1 as well. But renaming "unnamed" to "mixed" is an improvement that takes almost no effort to implement, so it might be a good interim measure. Fixing the deeper problem is significantly more work (otherwise someone would have fixed this bug properly already!).

It would be pretty odd to call it dirstate/pack-0.92, because both of these are combinations of working tree, branch, and repository. The problem is not that the branch is *both*, the problem is that it's *neither*, and names like dirstate/pack-0.92 are not precise.

For example, consider dirstate/1.6: what branch format does this indicate: 5 or 7? What repository format?

Andrew Bennetts пишет:
> A trivial improvement might be to call it "mixed" rather than "unnamed".
> It's still not very helpful (and probably not sufficient to consider
> this bug fixed), but it is probably less alarming.

My 5 kopecks: I guess "mixed" is good, especially if you write also about -v option, e.g.

Repository tree (format: mixed, use bzr info -v to see more info)
...

Alexander Belchenko пишет:
> Andrew Bennetts пишет:
>> A trivial improvement might be to call it "mixed" rather than "unnamed".
>> It's still not very helpful (and probably not sufficient to consider
>> this bug fixed), but it is probably less alarming.
>
> My 5 kopecks: I guess "mixed" is good, especially if you write also
> about -v option, e.g.
>
> Repository tree (format: mixed, use bzr info -v to see more info)

Or perhaps better wording would be:

Repository tree (format: mixed, use bzr info -v for details)

?