bzr info doesn't report on bound status or location

[Jamie Wilkinson]

I keep typing "bzr info" when i want to see if my current branch is bound to its parent, which I often do on my workstation to keep them in sync with my repos on laptop.

Can info be changed to include bound status and the location of the bound branch?

Thanks.

[Robert Collins (lifeless)]

On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 02:37 +0000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
> Public bug reported:
>
> I keep typing "bzr info" when i want to see if my current branch is
> bound to its parent, which I often do on my workstation to keep them in
> sync with my repos on laptop.
>
> Can info be changed to include bound status and the location of the
> bound branch?

It already does. What version of bzr are you using ?

Cheers,
Rob
--
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.

[Jamie Wilkinson (jaq-spacepants)]

This one time, at band camp, Robert Collins wrote:
>On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 02:37 +0000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
>> Public bug reported:
>>
>> I keep typing "bzr info" when i want to see if my current branch is
>> bound to its parent, which I often do on my workstation to keep them in
>> sync with my repos on laptop.
>>
>> Can info be changed to include bound status and the location of the
>> bound branch?
>
>It already does. What version of bzr are you using ?

dawn% bzr version
Bazaar (bzr) 0.11.0dev0

dawn% bzr info
Location:
    shared repository: file:///home/jaq/src/zookeepr/
  repository checkout: mainline

Related branches:
      parent branch: file:///home/jaq/src/zookeepr/zookeepr.dev
  publish to branch:
sftp://<email address hidden>/~/repo/zookeepr/mainline/

Format:
       control: Meta directory format 1
  working tree: Working tree format 3
        branch: Branch format 5
    repository: Knit repository format 1

In the working tree:
       226 unchanged
         2 modified
         0 added
         0 removed
         0 renamed
         0 unknown
        70 ignored
        33 versioned subdirectories

Branch history:
       379 revisions
       148 days old
   first revision: Sun 2006-04-09 22:43:46 +1000
  latest revision: Sat 2006-08-19 08:55:39 +1000

Revision store:
      1353 revisions
      6437 KiB

I know for a fact that this branch is bound to the publish branch listed
above, but it doesn't actually say "bound" anywhere.

[John A Meinel (jameinel)]

It does include the information, though not necessarily in the form that you were expecting:

publish to branch:
sftp://<email address hidden>/~/repo/zookeepr/mainline/

That means that you are bound.

We are suffering from a terminology problem. Where a 'bound branch' is being called a 'checkout'. And in general we are trying to get away from the 'bound/unbound/bind/unbind' terminology, because it doesn't work well with 'checkout' concepts that people are used to.

If you can think of a way to say it, rather than 'publish to', that works well with 'checkout' and possibly with 'bound'. Feel more than free to suggest it.

[Jamie Wilkinson (jaq-spacepants)]

This one time, at band camp, John A Meinel wrote:
>It does include the information, though not necessarily in the form that
>you were expecting:
>
>publish to branch:
>sftp://<email address hidden>/~/repo/zookeepr/mainline/
>
>That means that you are bound.

Ah. I thought that meant "when I type bzr push it'll publish there".

>We are suffering from a terminology problem. Where a 'bound branch' is
>being called a 'checkout'. And in general we are trying to get away from
>the 'bound/unbound/bind/unbind' terminology, because it doesn't work
>well with 'checkout' concepts that people are used to.
>
>If you can think of a way to say it, rather than 'publish to', that
>works well with 'checkout' and possibly with 'bound'. Feel more than
>free to suggest it.

Yeah, I didn't realise it was also affected by checkouts, which I don't use.
I don't have any ideas on how better to say it. :)

[Robert Collins (lifeless)]

On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 02:50 +0000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
>
> >If you can think of a way to say it, rather than 'publish to', that
> >works well with 'checkout' and possibly with 'bound'. Feel more than
> >free to suggest it.
>
> Yeah, I didn't realise it was also affected by checkouts, which I
> don't use.
> I don't have any ideas on how better to say it. :)

A 'bound branch' *IS* a checkout, which is why we want to eliminate the
term 'bound branch' - its seriously confusing.

-Rob

--
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.

[Jamie Wilkinson (jaq-spacepants)]

This one time, at band camp, Robert Collins wrote:
>On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 02:50 +0000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
>>
>> >If you can think of a way to say it, rather than 'publish to', that
>> >works well with 'checkout' and possibly with 'bound'. Feel more than
>> >free to suggest it.
>>
>> Yeah, I didn't realise it was also affected by checkouts, which I
>> don't use.
>> I don't have any ideas on how better to say it. :)
>
>A 'bound branch' *IS* a checkout, which is why we want to eliminate the
>term 'bound branch' - its seriously confusing.

Really? I didn't check it out, I ran:

bzr get sftp://dawn/~/src/snuh/bar
cd bar
bzr bind sftp://dawn/~/src/snuh/bar

which to me says "I made a new branch, and then bound it," not "i checked
out an existing branch".

At any time I can bzr unbind this and it's now a separate branch, and then I
can push or merge back to the parent before binding again.

So, conceptually, it's not a checkout, and I'd never have thought that it
was until you mentioned it in this bug.

If you want to eliminate the term, then you need to eliminate the commands
'bind' and 'unbind'. What you replace/rename them with, I don't know.

[Aaron Bentley (abentley)]

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

Robert Collins wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 02:50 +0000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:

>> Yeah, I didn't realise it was also affected by checkouts, which I
>> don't use.
>> I don't have any ideas on how better to say it. :)
>
> A 'bound branch' *IS* a checkout, which is why we want to eliminate the
> term 'bound branch' - its seriously confusing.

What if the bound branch has no working tree?

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFE/kWt0F+nu1YWqI0RAoaKAJ46pq7BqAgoTq1cf6KaFihRxzay7ACdFPhL
g2CMAPfefCCrOFPuOw6S0Nc=
=SSsW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Jari Aalto (jari-aalto)]

Current situation:

a)
    $ bzr init .
    $ bzr info

    Location:
      branch root: file:///tmp/1/

    Format:
           control: Meta directory format 1
      working tree: Working tree format 3
            branch: Branch format 5
        repository: Knit repository format 1
b)
    $ bzr init-repo .
    $ bzr info

    Location:
      shared repository: file:///tmp/3/

    Format:
           control: Meta directory format 1
        repository: Knit repository format 1

c)
    $ bzr init-repo --trees .
    $ bzr info

    Location:
      shared repository: file:///tmp/2/

    Format:
           control: Meta directory format 1
        repository: Knit repository format 1

(a) is regular full blown version because it reads
"branch", but differentiating (b) from (c) can't be read from the
listing. Perhaps that could be made read:

a)
    Location:
+ type: standalone
      branch root: file:///tmp/1/

b)
    Location:
+ type: shared
      shared repository: file:///tmp/2

c)
    Location:
+ type: shared trees
      shared repository: file:///tmp/3

Btw, please drop the trailing slash from the path names. The backend
tools that read the information can then just

    PATH + FILENAME

instead of

    (rip off the last slash from PATH) + FILENAME

Jari

[Martin Pool (mbp)]

I think this bug is now basically fixed: the info output is more concise and now shows if you're in a checkout. We can improve the info output more, but should probably talk about that on list or make a spec for how it should look.