Comment 8 for bug 629150

Am 17/11/11 18:00, schrieb Henrik Nordström:
> tor 2011-11-17 klockan 13:46 +0000 skrev Jelmer Vernooij:
>
>> Why would it be a bad idea to not have "bzr update" update the branch
> nick?
>
> a) bzr update is something done often. and adding new network operations
> to update should be avoided. Especially when the result of that
> operation will in ca 99.999% of all cases be the same as when binding
> the branch.
The nick name is stored in the branch configuration file of the master
branch, which will be read in its entirety anyway. There is no extra
overhead in always checking the branch nick.

> b) forcing nick updates so forces a new branch nick management compared
> to earlier releases, while the proposed change only makes bound brances
> inherit their nick by default, without changing existing branches.
>
> my main concern is 'a', but see a risk that 'b' may affect some people.
The question is whether we want to support local branches having a
different nick. I don't think we do, since bound branches behave as
perfect copies of the master branch in all other regards. If we do want
to make it possible for local branch nicks to diverge, we should not set
the local branch nick during bind (since not having the nick set would
mean "use whatever the master branch nick is"). If do we want to keep
the local and master branch nicks in sync, I think we should do it
whenever we sync with the master branch.

If we only set the branch nick on bind, then that also means that people
who do have a local branch at the moment without a nick set explicitly
will lose their branch nick. This is because we would stop checking the
master branch nick on all operations but "bzr update".

Cheers,

Jelmer