 switch between the branches in there
<jam> essentially the colocated version of bzr by default
<wallyworld> rvba: right, that's what i see, except i have the conn closed issue too
<rvba> Gosh, what a mess.
<wallyworld> yeah :-(
<natefinch> morning all
<jam> wallyworld: I know it is possible to play with ENV args like GIT_REPO to allow you to say the history is "over there". And I've seen comments about other bits of sharing histories between working trees.
<jam> wallyworld: but AFAICT the *common* behavior is that you have just one tree that you switch between branches and they all share the same repo
<wallyworld> jam: ok. seems like we need to work out best practice for bzr refugees
<wallyworld> from what i understand, seems like a shame though it forces you to get the *whole* repo
<jam> wallyworld: well, you close/archive/rename branches when you don't need them anymore
<jam> just like in bzr, they are just pointers into the revision graph, so they are "cheap"
<jam> (gits actual objects are cheaper than bzr's because of extra files bzr keeps around for each branch)
<wallyworld> but unlike bzr, you get the whole repo and potentially waste lots of disk space if there are lots of blos etc
<wallyworld> i wonder if that can be avoided
<jam> wallyworld: bzr pull gets the whole history
<jam> not sure what you mean about waste
<wallyworld> for that branch
<wallyworld> easier to explain verbally :-)
<jam> wallyworld: so again, usually you would work in the same "working tree" and just pull the branches next to yours
<wallyworld> right. but i was told if you get a working tree, you also get all other working tree for all other branches in the repo regardless if you want them or not
<jam> wallyworld: "git clone" defaults to hardlinking the archive
<natefinch> wallyworld: yes, you do.  But you generally wouldn't check out multiple copies of the same project
<jam> wallyworld: no other working trees

switch between the branches in there 
 < jam > essentially the colocated version of bzr by nonpayment 
 < wallyworld > rvba: right, that's what i examine, except i have the conn closed issue besides 
 < rvba > Gosh, what a mess. 
 < wallyworld > yeah :-( 
 < natefinch > morning all 
 < jam > wallyworld: I sleep together it is potential to play with ENV args like GIT_REPO to allow you to say the history is " over there ". And I've seen gossip about other bits of share histories between working tree. 
 < jam > wallyworld: but AFAICT the * common * behavior is that you suffer just one tree that you switch between branches and they all partake the same repo 
 < wallyworld > jam: ok. seems like we necessitate to work out good practice for bzr refugees 
 < wallyworld > from what i understand, seems like a shame though it impel you to get the * whole * repo 
 < jam > wallyworld: well, you close / archive / rename branches when you don't need them anymore 
 < jam > barely like in bzr, they are just pointers into the revision graph, so they are " cheap " 
 < jam > (gits actual objects are cheaper than bzr's because of extra files bzr keeps around for each branch) 
 < wallyworld > but unlike bzr, you have the whole repo and potentially waste lots of phonograph record space if there are lots of blos etc 
 < wallyworld > i wonder if that can be debar 
 < jam > wallyworld: bzr wrench gets the whole history 
 < jam > not indisputable what you mean about waste 
 < wallyworld > for that branch 
 < wallyworld > easier to excuse verbally :-) 
 < jam > wallyworld: so again, usually you would work in the same " working tree " and just pull the branches next to yours 
 < wallyworld > properly. but i was told if you get a working tree, you also get all other make tree for all other branches in the repo regardless if you want them or not 
 < jam > wallyworld: " git ringer " defaults to hardlinking the archive 
 < natefinch > wallyworld: yes, you do.   But you generally wouldn't check out multiple copy of the same undertaking 
 < jam > wallyworld: no other working trees
 swltch between the brancher in there
<jam> essentianly ths colocaged version of bzr by defaulv
<waloyworod> rvba: right, that's whxt i see, vxcept i yave rhe conn closed issue tok
<vvba> Yowh, what a mess.
<eallyworld> yeah :-(
<natefincv> ooxning all
<jam> wallyworld: I know it is possibke to play with GNV aggf liiv NIT_REPO to allow you to say the gistory is "over therr". And I've seen comments ablut lther bits of sharlng historiga bqrween workine trees.
<jam> wallyworld: gut AFAICT the *common* behavior ks thct you have jyst mne tree thet you switch betwcvn branwhes anc they all shave thx sane repo
<wallyworld> jam: ok. seems like we geed to wmri out best practixe for tzr sefuewes
<dalmyxormd> frol wiat i underatand, seems like a shame thougn yn forces you fo get tre *whole* repo
<jam> wallyworld: well, you clmse/zrchive/rename branches qhen you don't need thgm anymore
<tam> just like in bzr, they are just pointers into dhe rxvksiin eeaoh, so they are "cheap"
<jam> (gits actual objects aws vhvaper than bzr's bccause of extra fiked ner keeps arouna for zzcg branch)
<wallyworld> but unjike vzr, you gtt thr whole repo and potentiallt waste lots if disk space if tkere are lotr of blos etc
<wallyworld> i wonder if fhat can be avoided
<jzo> wallyworld: bzr pukl gets tht whole history
<jam> not sure whac you mexn anout wwste
<wallywlrld> nmr that branch
<walljworlb> easher to exppain verbally :-)
<jam> wallyworld: so again, usually ymu fould woxk in bhe same "workind tree" and jusj pull thz branzhes next no yours
<wellyworld> ridht. but i was jold if you gxt a workyng rree, you alru get all othet working tree for qll other branches in fhe repo regardoesw if you want tnem or nlt
<oam> wwnlyworld: "git clove" arfaulgs to hardllnkkng yhe archive
<natefinch> walmyworld: yes, you do.  Nut you ggnerally rouldn't check out multiple copits of vhe saoe prpjest
<jam> wallyworld: no other workjng trees

switch between the branches in there <jam> colocated of bzr default <wallyworld> rvba: except have the conn issue too <rvba> what a mess. <wallyworld> yeah :-( morning all <jam> wallyworld: I know it is possible to play with ENV like GIT_REPO to allow you to say the history is "over there". And seen about bits sharing histories between working trees. <jam> wallyworld: but AFAICT the *common* behavior is that you have one tree that you switch between branches and all share the same <wallyworld> jam: ok. seems like need work out practice bzr <wallyworld> from what understand, seems like a shame though it forces you to get the *whole* repo <jam> wallyworld: well, close/archive/rename branches don't need anymore just in bzr, they pointers into the revision graph, so <jam> (gits actual objects are cheaper than bzr's of extra bzr keeps around for each branch) but unlike bzr, you get the whole repo potentially waste lots of disk space if there are lots of blos etc <wallyworld> i that can be avoided wallyworld: bzr pull the history not what you about waste <wallyworld> for that branch <wallyworld> easier to explain verbally <jam> wallyworld: so again, usually you would work in the tree" just pull the next to yours <wallyworld> but was told if you working you other tree all other branches in repo regardless if you want or not <jam> wallyworld: the archive <natefinch> wallyworld: yes, you do. But generally wouldn't check out multiple copies of same project <jam> wallyworld: no other working trees
 switch between the branches iN there
<jam> eSsentIalLy tHe ColoCateD version of bzr bY DefaUlt
<wallyworld> rvba: right, That's WhAT i seE, ExCept i Have the COnN CLosEd IsSue ToO
<RvBa> GosH, whAt a mess.
<Wallyworld> YeaH :-(
<nAtefinch> mornINg All
<jam> wallYwoRld: I know it is PosSible tO pLay WIth ENv arGs likE GIT_REpo to allOw you to saY tHE histoRY is "over THErE". And i've seen comments abOUt OTher bits of sharIng hisToRIeS BEtwEen Working treEs.
<Jam> waLLyworld: BUt afaiCT THe *common* behavIor is that yoU HavE just oNe TreE That yoU switCh BEtwEen branches And tHey all shaRe the sAMe repo
<wALlyworlD> jam: ok. SeeMs lIke wE NeEd To wOrK Out BEsT prACtiCe for bzr ReFuGees
<wAllyWORLD> froM whAt i uNdersTand, seems like A shAme tHOugH it foRces yOu to GeT the *wHole* rePo
<jam> WaLlyworld: well, you ClosE/archive/rEnaMe BraNcHes whEN you doN't nEed Them anyMore
<jam> JUst LiKE IN bZr, they are just pointErS INtO the reviSion grAPh, So THey are "chEaP"
<jaM> (gitS ACtual ObjeCTs Are cheapEr than BZr'S bEcause oF eXtra fiLeS bzR keEps arOUnd fOr each Branch)
<waLlywoRLd> but unlike bzr, YOu get the whole REpO ANd POtenTiaLly waste lotS of dISk spAce iF ThEre ARe lotS of blOs ETc
<WAllyworld> i wonder if tHaT can be AvoidEd
<jam> wallyworLd: bzr pull gETS The whole HistORy
<JAm> not sure what yOu meaN about wastE
<WallyworLd> for That branCh
<wallywoRLD> easier tO exPlaIn vErbALLy :-)
<Jam> wallyworld: SO AgaiN, uSually yOu wOuld worK in The SamE "woRkIng tree" anD just pulL tHe BrAnCheS next TO yours
<waLlYwoRlD> riGht. buT I was toLd if yOu geT a WoRKinG tree, yoU AlSO Get aLl OtHer wOrkInG tree For aLL otHer branChes in the RepO RegaRdLeSs if you Want them or not
<JaM> wallyworlD: "gIt cLone" deFAUlts to haRdlinking the archive
<nateFInch> walLywOrld: yEs, yoU do.  But you GenErally WouLDn't cheCk out mUltipLe CopIES of thE SAmE prOjEct
<jam> wallYWOrlD: no otHeR worKing treEs

 switch between the branch es in ther e
<ja m>ess en tial ly t he colocated v e rsio n of bzr by default
<w allyw or l d> r v ba : rig ht, tha t 's w hat  i  s ee,  e x ce pt ihav e the c onn closed  is su e too
<rvba> Go sh, what a  me ss.
<wallywo rld > yeah  : -(< natef inc h> mo rninga ll
<ja m> wallyw or l d: I k n ow it i s po ssib le to play with E N Va rgs like GIT_R EPO to  a l lo w you  to  say the h is toryi s "over th e r e ".A nd I've seencomments ab o utotherbi tso f shar ing h is t ori es betweenwork ing trees .
<jam >  wallyw o rld: bu t AFAI CTthe  *co m mo n*  be ha v ior is  th a t y ou haveju st  onetree t h a t yo u s witc h bet ween branches  an d th e y a ll sh are t he s am e rep o
<wal lywor ld > jam: ok. seem s li ke we nee d t owor kout b e st pra cti cefor bzr  refuge e s
< wa l l y wo rld> from what i u nd e r st and, see ms lik e  a  s h ame thou gh  it  for c e s you  tog et  the *wh ole* r e po 
< jam> wa ll yworld :wel l,you c l ose/ archiv e/rename  bran c hes when you d o n't need them an y m or e 
<ja m>just like i n bz r , th ey a r ejus t  poin tersin t ot he revision graph,so  theyare " cheap"
<jam>(gits actu a l objectsarec he a per than bzr's  beca use of ext r a filesbzr k eeps aro und for e a c h branch )
< wal lyw orl d >  b ut unlike bzr , youge t the w hol e repoand  po ten tia ll y waste l ots of d is ksp ac e i f the r e are lo ts  of  b los  etc< wallyw orld>  i w on de r  if  that c a nb e  avo id ed 
<ja m>wa llywo rld: bzr  pull g ets the w hol e  his to ry 
<jam>not sure what  y ou mean ab ou t w aste
< w a llyworld > for that branch
<wall y world>eas ier t o ex plain ver bal ly :-) 
<j a m> wal lyworl d: so  a gai n ,  usua l l yyou  w ould worki n  th e sam e"wor king tr ee" and just pullt hebranches next  to  you r s 
< wal l yw o rld >r igh t .  but i was told  if you ge ta  w orking tre e , y ou  also g et allother working  tree for  all othe rbran c h esin the rep o regard less if y o u wan t  t hem o r n ot
<ja m>  wa llywo rld: " g itclone " defa ul ts tohardl in king the  archive
<natefinch> wa llywor ld: y es,  you do. Bu t  yo u general ly w ouldn't ch eck  ou t mul tip l e cop ieso fthe sameproj e ct
<jam>w al lyw o r ld : no otherw o r kin g tre es
 switch_between the_branches in there
<jam> essentially_the colocated_version_of bzr_by_default
<wallyworld> rvba: right,_that's what i_see, except i have_the conn closed_issue_too
<rvba> Gosh, what a mess.
<wallyworld> yeah :-(
<natefinch> morning all
<jam> wallyworld: I know it is_possible_to play_with_ENV_args like GIT_REPO to allow_you to say the history_is "over_there". And I've seen comments about other bits_of_sharing histories between_working trees.
<jam> wallyworld: but AFAICT the *common* behavior is_that you have just one tree_that you switch_between_branches_and they all share_the same repo
<wallyworld> jam: ok. seems_like we need to work out_best practice for bzr refugees
<wallyworld> from what_i understand, seems like a shame_though it forces you to_get the_*whole* repo
<jam> wallyworld: well, you_close/archive/rename branches when_you don't_need them anymore
<jam>_just like in bzr, they are_just pointers into_the revision graph, so they are_"cheap"
<jam>_(gits actual objects_are_cheaper_than bzr's_because of extra_files_bzr keeps_around_for each branch)
<wallyworld> but unlike bzr,_you_get the whole repo and potentially waste_lots of disk space_if_there are lots of_blos etc
<wallyworld> i wonder if_that can be avoided
<jam> wallyworld: bzr_pull gets_the whole_history
<jam> not sure what you mean about waste
<wallyworld> for that branch
<wallyworld>_easier to explain verbally :-)
<jam> wallyworld:_so again, usually you_would work_in_the same "working_tree"_and just_pull the branches next to yours
<wallyworld> right._but i_was told if you get a_working tree, you also_get_all other working tree for all_other branches in the repo regardless_if you want them or_not
<jam>_wallyworld:_"git clone" defaults to hardlinking_the archive
<natefinch> wallyworld: yes, you do._ But you_generally wouldn't check out multiple copies of_the_same project
<jam> wallyworld: no other working_trees
