User1: mwhudson, ?
User1: mwhudson, some paste
User2: morning
User2: co-located branches doc (http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/developers/colocated-branches.html) lists few 'use cases' (http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/developers/colocated-branches.html#use-cases) and i'm not sure whether co-located branches are real need in bzr (yesterday i played with --lightweight checkouts used for feature branches based on shared repo) or is it more of filling the gap to hg/git's features?
User3: User2 they are more convenient than lightweight checkouts + branchless repo, and just as good for many cases, so that's a pretty valuable improvement
User2: User3 i see...thanks...are they going to be ready for 2.6?
User3: They're already ready in 2.5: http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/bzr.2.5/en/whats-new/whats-new-in-2.5.html#basic-colocated-branch-support
User3: No doubt they'll be even better in 2.6 :)
User2: iirc, jelmer or someone else was speaking something about UI not polished (yet)...otoh, i was not aware they're already in...does it mean we should (try) to adopt 'em instead of lightweight co-s & branchless repos?
User3: I'd give it go, yes.
User2: ok
User3: If you don't like them for some reason you can always change your mind later and use lightweight checkouts and boring old branches in treeless repo, etc :)
User2: :-)
User2: in some use cases, i like treeless repo and lw co-s...eg. i'm using weechat irc client and my ~/.weechat is lightweight co keeping track of weechat's config files, while the treeless repo is in ~/repos
User2: hmm, colocated branches need new format...we just talked about bzr's formats yesterday :-)
User2: 2.6 docs when speaking about colocated branches uses future tense, so wondering what's avaialable today...
User4: suspect once you get used to them you'll want to use colocated all the time
User3: User4 well, it's not especially well-suited for the .dotfiles use case mentioned above.
User3: But for general code hacking, yeha.
User5: User2 huh?
User5: User2 colocated branches need a new format?
User2: User5 bzr init -h ==> --development-colo  The 2a format with experimental support for colocated
User2: branches.
User2: or it means something else i'm not aware of?
User5: User2 the development-colo format isn't  necessary for colocated branches anymore
User5: User2 you can just use them with 2a these days
User2: User5 hmm, it seems that docs needs some love then ;)
User5: User2 which docs?
User2: User5 bzr-2.5.1 help text for 'init' command
User6: morning!
User5: hey mgz
User5: User2 ah, but I guess it's listed under the development formats still?
User2: User5 well, it's listed under branch format section along with --2a etc., iow. valid option for 'init' in 2.5.1
User5: User2 sure, but there's lots of other uninteresting formats there too
User5: *development
User5: though we should probably hide development-colo
 * gour nods
User7: do I need to register a launchpad account in order to just clone (branch?) a repository?
User5: User7 no, you can clone a branch (as long as it's not private) without an account
User7: User5 do I need to init a repo before running bzr branch?
User5: User7 no, see the mini tutorial
User5: http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/latest/en/mini-tutorial/
User7: I tried both, "bzr branch lp:foo" and "mkdir foo; cd foo; bzr init; bzr branch lp:foo"
User7: k
User7: I just read that
User7: it shows how to init-repo and init but it doesn't says it that's *mandatory* or not
User7: with git a "git clone" would create the local repository as well
User5: User7 in bzr the repository is created if a shared one doesn't exist too
User7: I'm trying cloning lp:groundhog
User7: I get    bzr: ERROR: Not a branch: "http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~juanjux/groundhog/groundhog-juanjo/"
User7: when running "bzr branch lp:groundhog", is that an issue on my side or not?
User5: User7 that branch doesn't really exist - it's never been pushed to according to the web page
User7: sounds like it isn't
User7: I see
User7: Recent revisions
User7: This branch has not been pushed to yet.
User7: so the launchpad repository for the project is empty, isn't it?
User5: it doesn't actually have a control directory I think
User5: so it's not even empty
User7: I apologize but I'm really new to bzr
User7: idk what a control directory is
User7: the point is that lp:groundhog has no code, is this correct?
User5: it's the same thing as ".git" in git
User5: I mean, in git the control directory is named ".git"
User5: User7 yes, lp:groundhog doesn't have any code
User7: I see lp:~juanjux/groundhog/trunk is listed as branch and that has code
User7: is there any difference between a subdir in user space or a root level project?
User7: I mean is that just a convention, a matter of taste or so?
User7: (fetching)
User5: User7 I'm not sure I follow
User5: User7 subdir in user space?
User7: User5 yes, ~juanjux/groundhog rather than groundhog
User5: User7 ah, that's just convention
User7: thx
User7: bye
User8: vila: Could you please review https://code.launchpad.net/~abentley/bzr/config-branchname/+merge/110825 ?
User8: User9 Changing branchname to fall back to basename is a 1-line change, and I'm happy to do that.  Maybe rename to "shortname".  But you're not proposing we remove "basename", right?  So we'd still be introducing a new variable.
User9: User8 I'm fine with a new var, what I want is to have 1 var that can just be used, without needing to think "do I need X or Y in this case"
User8: User9 Okay.  Does "shortname" work?  ("branchshortname" seems...long)
User9: branchname is fine for me
User9: I think I prefer that
User8: User9 "branchname" was meant to refer to the colocated branch terminology.  jelmer, is it cool if I introduce a config var called "branchname" that is ",branch=$NAME" but falls back to "parent/$NAME"?
User6: Have we got a bug for `bzr config --remove launchpad_username` not working on 2.5.1?
User6: needs --scope=bazaar
User2: /q
bzr
Ubuntu IRC