=== r0bby is now known as robbyoconnor === 50UABNR34 is now known as wallyworld === wallyworld is now known as Guest48627 [07:57] morning! [08:00] moin [08:07] jelmer: shall we pre-thingy mumble even if jam isn't back in time? [08:27] mgz: sure [08:28] mgz: ? [08:31] jelmer: hopping on [08:42] There's no interactive rebase for bazaar, is there? [08:42] quotemstr: no interactive rebase, no [08:47] mgz: still there? [08:50] jelmer: yup === mmrazik is now known as mmrazik|lunch === mmrazik|lunch is now known as mmrazik === milleja46_ is now known as milleja46 [15:39] OK so if i've got the primary repo with --no-trees [15:39] and a branch of the primary repo [15:39] then I copy the files from that branch ... back into the primary repo [15:39] will anything within the /.bzr dir have changed in the primary repo? [15:41] what do you mean by "copy"? [15:46] mgz, like a shell command of $ cp the_branched_dir /trunk [15:50] right, so genenerally you don't want to do that with branches under shared repositories, use branch to move stuff from one to another [15:51] `bzr branch`, that is. [15:52] cp then `bzr reconfigure` is safe in a limited set of circumstances, and you risk breaking things with it if you get it wrong. [16:40] mgz, so basically in the situation above ... [16:40] can I just delete all the files which I CPed in [16:40] and leave the .bzr dir and it will be peachy =]? [16:44] delinquentme: yup [16:44] provided you mean also removing the branch/.bzr but leaving .bzr for the repo [16:45] then doing `bzr branch` to copy the old branch under the new repo [16:59] huh, the test directory isolation code doesn't normalize URLs ... [17:03] so, say, TMPDIR=/var/folders/4b/4b+Qm+OQFj8f23emq17tBU+++TM/-Tmp-/ can cause problems, though perhaps not in bzr's own tests [17:06] (Thankfully, the fact that /var actually a symlink to private/var seems not to be a problem.) [18:35] ... is there some secret development channel that nobody told me about, or has bzr, like, died or something? [18:47] no, there is no cabal ;) [18:47] see the recent lwn article [18:49] hmm, that could be an issue if I want to build a Haskell package in the future... [18:49] SamB_MacG5: hehe [18:50] ookay, why does google think "lwn" is a synonym for "vs" ? [18:50] heh, no idea [18:51] you mean https://lwn.net/Articles/515652/, which is evidently paywalled for the next 3 days? [18:52] ah, yes [18:52] sorry [18:53] it is based on a public thread on the mailing list though [18:59] how did the thread get so fragmented .... [19:01] * jelmer v [19:02] * jelmer blames certain individu als