[06:46] <zyga> mwhudson, ?
[06:46] <zyga> mwhudson, some paste
[07:00] <gour> morning
[07:03] <gour> 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?
[07:14] <spiv> gour: they are more convenient than lightweight checkouts + branchless repo, and just as good for many cases, so that's a pretty valuable improvement
[07:15] <gour> spiv: i see...thanks...are they going to be ready for 2.6?
[07:17] <spiv> 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
[07:17] <spiv> No doubt they'll be even better in 2.6 :)
[07:19] <gour> 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?
[07:19] <spiv> I'd give it go, yes.
[07:19] <gour> ok
[07:20] <spiv> 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 :)
[07:21] <gour> :-)
[07:23] <gour> 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
[07:27] <gour> hmm, colocated branches need new format...we just talked about bzr's formats yesterday :-)
[07:29] <gour> 2.6 docs when speaking about colocated branches uses future tense, so wondering what's avaialable today...
[07:39] <bob2> suspect once you get used to them you'll want to use colocated all the time
[07:42] <spiv> bob2: well, it's not especially well-suited for the .dotfiles use case mentioned above.
[07:43] <spiv> But for general code hacking, yeha.
[07:44] <jelmer> gour: huh?
[07:44] <jelmer> gour: colocated branches need a new format?
[07:47] <gour> jelmer: bzr init -h ==> --development-colo  The 2a format with experimental support for colocated
[07:48] <gour> branches.
[07:49] <gour> or it means something else i'm not aware of?
[07:50] <jelmer> gour: the development-colo format isn't  necessary for colocated branches anymore
[07:50] <jelmer> gour: you can just use them with 2a these days
[07:51] <gour> jelmer: hmm, it seems that docs needs some love then ;)
[07:51] <jelmer> gour: which docs?
[07:53] <gour> jelmer: bzr-2.5.1 help text for 'init' command
[08:00] <mgz> morning!
[08:03] <jelmer> hey mgz
[08:03] <jelmer> gour: ah, but I guess it's listed under the development formats still?
[08:07] <gour> jelmer: well, it's listed under branch format section along with --2a etc., iow. valid option for 'init' in 2.5.1
[08:09] <jelmer> gour: sure, but there's lots of other uninteresting formats there too
[08:09] <jelmer> *development
[08:09] <jelmer> though we should probably hide development-colo
[08:14]  * gour nods
[12:44] <anddam> do I need to register a launchpad account in order to just clone (branch?) a repository?
[12:44] <jelmer> anddam: no, you can clone a branch (as long as it's not private) without an account
[12:45] <anddam> jelmer: do I need to init a repo before running bzr branch?
[12:46] <jelmer> anddam: no, see the mini tutorial
[12:46] <jelmer> http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/latest/en/mini-tutorial/
[12:46] <anddam> I tried both, "bzr branch lp:foo" and "mkdir foo; cd foo; bzr init; bzr branch lp:foo"
[12:46] <anddam> k
[12:46] <anddam> I just read that
[12:46] <anddam> it shows how to init-repo and init but it doesn't says it that's *mandatory* or not
[12:47] <anddam> with git a "git clone" would create the local repository as well
[12:48] <jelmer> anddam: in bzr the repository is created if a shared one doesn't exist too
[12:48] <anddam> I'm trying cloning lp:groundhog
[12:48] <anddam> I get    bzr: ERROR: Not a branch: "http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~juanjux/groundhog/groundhog-juanjo/"
[12:49] <anddam> when running "bzr branch lp:groundhog", is that an issue on my side or not?
[12:49] <jelmer> anddam: that branch doesn't really exist - it's never been pushed to according to the web page
[12:49] <anddam> sounds like it isn't
[12:49] <anddam> I see
[12:50] <anddam> Recent revisions
[12:50] <anddam> This branch has not been pushed to yet.
[12:50] <anddam> so the launchpad repository for the project is empty, isn't it?
[12:50] <jelmer> it doesn't actually have a control directory I think
[12:51] <jelmer> so it's not even empty
[12:51] <anddam> I apologize but I'm really new to bzr
[12:51] <anddam> idk what a control directory is
[12:51] <anddam> the point is that lp:groundhog has no code, is this correct?
[12:51] <jelmer> it's the same thing as ".git" in git
[12:52] <jelmer> I mean, in git the control directory is named ".git"
[12:52] <jelmer> anddam: yes, lp:groundhog doesn't have any code
[12:52] <anddam> I see lp:~juanjux/groundhog/trunk is listed as branch and that has code
[12:52] <anddam> is there any difference between a subdir in user space or a root level project?
[12:53] <anddam> I mean is that just a convention, a matter of taste or so?
[12:53] <anddam> (fetching)
[13:00] <jelmer> anddam: I'm not sure I follow
[13:00] <jelmer> anddam: subdir in user space?
[13:04] <anddam> jelmer: yes, ~juanjux/groundhog rather than groundhog
[13:05] <jelmer> anddam: ah, that's just convention
[13:11] <anddam> thx
[13:11] <anddam> bye
[13:38] <abentley> vila: Could you please review https://code.launchpad.net/~abentley/bzr/config-branchname/+merge/110825 ?
[14:51] <abentley> jam: 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.
[14:51] <jam> abentley: 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"
[14:52] <abentley> jam: Okay.  Does "shortname" work?  ("branchshortname" seems...long)
[14:53] <jam> branchname is fine for me
[14:53] <jam> I think I prefer that
[14:55] <abentley> jam: "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"?
[17:55] <mgz> Have we got a bug for `bzr config --remove launchpad_username` not working on 2.5.1?
[17:56] <mgz> needs --scope=bazaar
[20:33] <gour>     /q