'bzr bundle' changed to creating merge directives with a new format bundle internally.
They are a lot smaller and more efficient, but older clients will not be able to read them.
As part of the fix for bug #129504, it would be reasonable to change:
'bzr bundle' to be a separate command from 'bzr send'. And we can make it deprecated/hidden.
It should still create Bundle format 8/9, while 'bzr send -o' can generate the new format bundles.
It would be reasonable that 'bzr bundle' to issue a note saying that you can use 'bzr send -o' instead, which will generate a smaller/clearer/etc format.
There are some other incompatibilities. (bzr send *always* requires a target branch, while bzr bundle -r -2..-1 would just generate the bundle to recreate -1 from -2. It is possible that 'bzr send -r -2..-1 .' would do the same)
The new bundle format is pretty clear that you need at least bzr 0.19, since it has that in the header.
'bzr bundle' changed to creating merge directives with a new format bundle internally.
They are a lot smaller and more efficient, but older clients will not be able to read them.
As part of the fix for bug #129504, it would be reasonable to change:
'bzr bundle' to be a separate command from 'bzr send'. And we can make it deprecated/hidden.
It should still create Bundle format 8/9, while 'bzr send -o' can generate the new format bundles.
It would be reasonable that 'bzr bundle' to issue a note saying that you can use 'bzr send -o' instead, which will generate a smaller/clearer/etc format.
There are some other incompatibilities. (bzr send *always* requires a target branch, while bzr bundle -r -2..-1 would just generate the bundle to recreate -1 from -2. It is possible that 'bzr send -r -2..-1 .' would do the same)
The new bundle format is pretty clear that you need at least bzr 0.19, since it has that in the header.