Re: [gentoo-dev] Please review: updates for bzr.eclass

> "UM" == Ulrich Mueller writes: >> but please mv(1) old repos rather than rm(1)ing them; UM> Is the following better? UM> That looks p

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please review: updates for bzr.eclass

> On Mon, 07 Feb 2011, James Cloos wrote: UM> 1) initial branch with "bzr branch --no-tree", UM> 2) subsequent updates with "bzr pull", UM> 3) export to ${WORKDIR} with "bzr export". > I applaud those changes, Thanks. :) > but please mv(1) old repos rather than rm(1)ing them; bandwidth is >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Please review: updates for bzr.eclass

> "UM" == Ulrich Mueller writes: UM> 1) initial branch with "bzr branch --no-tree", UM> 2) subsequent updates with "bzr pull", UM> 3) export to ${WORKDIR} with "bzr export". I applaud those changes, but please mv(1) old repos rather than rm(1)ing them; bandwidth is often more of

[gentoo-dev] Please review: updates for bzr.eclass

Hello, Please review an updated version of bzr.eclass. This will fix the following main problems: - So far, bzr.eclass used "lightweight" checkouts. These are optimised for a use case very different from ours, where the data it accesses is considered local. This led to massive performance pr