Comment 29 for bug 45719

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Martin Pool wrote:
>> 4) This code still uses a form of "lookup the -r XXXX" in the local
> branch, and only if it can't be found look in the master branch. I feel
> like it should always be resolved in the master branch. That way "bzr
> update -r -1" is always the same as "bzr update". This was the crux of
> the discussion, IIRC, and why it wasn't merged way back when.
>
> I rarely use bound branches and to me it seems reasonable that it would
> look in the master but I don't have a strong opinion. Was there a real
> wish for it to be done locally or was that just easier to write? (I'll
> have a look in old mail.)
>

I believe the idea was that connecting to the master is slow, and thus
can add 5+s to something that would otherwise complete quickly.

There is currently a disagreement among the devs as to whether we should
make heavyweight checkouts exactly like lightweight (and thus have to
connect to the master to get any information except for maybe text
content), or whether they should behave like "bound branches" where it
is clear that you have a local branch with side effects.

If we want the former, then I feel it must lookup in the master. (this
is currently why 'bzr nick' connects to the master branch, etc.)

*I* prefer bound branches, because connecting when you don't have to is
annoying. (try using a heavyweight checkout with a prompt that shows you
the current branch nick...) However, I get the impression that I'm in
the minority.

John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAksw2GEACgkQJdeBCYSNAAO8NgCdESTmlAq8LdqYWYLKy/GkFL3h
FVAAnj02aul/xr8BX7RMQAhH704ExdX5
=d+eo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----