bzr version URL should display smart server information

[Vincent Ladeuil]

bzr version bzr+ssh://example.com/ should tell you the version of bzr installed on the remote server.

----
<sabdfl> is it possible to tell the version of a remote bzr server?
<sabdfl> for example, bzr version bzr+ssh://bazaar.launchpad.net/~bzr/bzr/trunk/
<vila> sabdfl: from the command line, I'm pretty sure you can't
<sabdfl> thanks vila - can you file a bug on that please? seems like a reasonable thing to do
<vila> sabdfl: I'll check the existing one first, the subject comes back often, may be on 'bzr info' instead of bzr version though...
<sabdfl> why? it's the version i want
<sabdfl> i don't mind if it's also displayed on info -vv
<vila> bzr version is for the client
<sabdfl> says who
<vila> ?
<vila> you don't specify an url to bzr version
<vila> bzr info <url> gives you info about the url, including ... bug #308472
<ubottu> Launchpad bug 308472 in bzr "bzr info should show the server version" [Medium,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/308472
<vila> sabdfl: here you are, enjoy the patch :-D
<sabdfl> vila
<sabdfl> i would like this information on bzr version if a URL is supplied
<sabdfl> don't tell me that "version does not take a URL"
<sabdfl> i'm asking that you add that ability
<vila> sabdfl: while filing a bug for that, I came across bug #308472, which already implements that on bzr info, I could add your comment there but... I think it makes more sense to accept that patch than to change the meanign of bzr version...
<ubottu> Launchpad bug 308472 in bzr "bzr info should show the server version" [Medium,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/308472
<vila> the rationale for adding it to info rather than version is that:
<vila> version url can gives info only if url is a smart server,
<sabdfl> that's true for info, too
<vila> whereas info will display it additionally when talking to a smart server
<vila> now, it may seem weird to not be able to ask for the server info with 'bzr version <server>' but....
<sabdfl> ok, i hear you, and appreciate the feedback, but the decision is to add an optional <url> to bzr version
<vila> ...but maybe we can fill the other slots that bzr version displays for the server...
<vila> that's more work though, so I'll see that the info patch lands and file a bug for bzr version with that discussion
<vila> sabdfl: what prompted your question at start ? Only the bzr version or also the python version used there, the various paths the revid, etc ?
<sabdfl> i just wanted to know the version of a server i was using
<sabdfl> and that was the command i typed
<sabdfl> then i remembered i did the same thing previously
<sabdfl> i believe others will have done the same
<vila> I agree
<sabdfl> please, file the bug and implement it after 2.0
<vila> So the basic info you wanted is what the info patch provides, adding an url to bzr version is what I file the bug with
<vila> right
<sabdfl> post-2.0 we will focus on user experience, and I'll be part of the review of that, so i'm confident this will pass review

[Andrew Bennetts (spiv)]

Until this gets added to core bzr, you can use the <https://launchpad.net/bzr-ping> plugin which reports the remote server version for a URL.

[Andrew Bennetts (spiv)]

Hmm, there are conflicting intuitions about where this belongs. The reporter of 308472 expected this to be provided by "bzr info", and that's what I'd expect too.

I don't think "bzr version" is a good fit for this functionality. It mostly reports details like Python version, where bzr is loading the Python standard library from, the platform identifier (including Linux kernel version where appropriate), locations of log files, and so on. Smart servers don't expose those details to clients, and I don't think they should.

"bzr info URL" is a closer fit in my opinion. It's purpose is "describe what's at URL to me", and "a server that claims to be version X.YZ" seems like a reasonable fact to describe alongside facts like "a branch in format F". I agree it probably should only be shown if "-v" (or maybe "-vv") is given; most users won't care what the server's software version is.

I can see an argument that like "bzr version", you'd want to know the remote version mainly for debugging purposes. Whereas "bzr info" is sometimes used for debugging a problem, but is also used in regular operation just to see what is at a URL. So in that sense reporting the server version might fit better with "bzr version", but still it's not where my intuitions would expect to find it.

[Robert Collins (lifeless)]

On Mon, 2009-08-31 at 02:41 +0000, Andrew Bennetts wrote:
> Hmm, there are conflicting intuitions about where this belongs. The
> reporter of 308472 expected this to be provided by "bzr info", and
> that's what I'd expect too.
>
> I don't think "bzr version" is a good fit for this functionality. It
> mostly reports details like Python version, where bzr is loading the
> Python standard library from, the platform identifier (including Linux
> kernel version where appropriate), locations of log files, and so on.
> Smart servers don't expose those details to clients, and I don't think
> they should.

Also 'version' is a very ambiguous command. It could refer to the users
tree, or bzr's software, or be an imperative similar to 'bzr add'.

As I recall we plan to remove it completely, retaining only 'bzr
--version', which is clearly not imperative and follows the regular
convention for getting software versions.

-Rob

[Vincent Ladeuil (vila)]

The original request is that using 'bzr version <url>' is the "natural" way to get the smart server version.

I'd like to keep the 'version' command and *add* the capability to report server information if an URL is provided.
While discussing the issue I had an exclusive mode in mind, I now think providing additional info fits better.

We, as devs doing support, tell people to use that command for quickly getting the relevant info we need.
Adding the ability to collect information about a server (smart or dumb) sounds pretty useful and something we may
want to enhance progressively for all protocols, starting with the smart server since we have more control here.