Re: Workflow to accumulate individual changes?

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 13:33, Stephen J. Turnbull <address@hidden> wrote:

> I don't understand what you're concerned about (yes, I've seen the
> followup which includes the footnote).

Well, if you read the note, you know what am I concerned about: not
the time for checking out the files, but the time to get the branch in
a runnable state. On my computer, "bzr branch trunk/ test/" is ~35s,
while "make bootstrap" is ~20min. The only fix for that is creating a
script to copy .o, .elc and other generated files from another branch.
Quite a fuss just to commit (and store for the future) a one-liner;
that's why I think of having a branch for these micro-issues. (Well,
colocated branches à la git would be wonderful for this case...)

> and creating a branch is very cheap (ie, the cost of
> copying the tree, which is small since you can use hardlinks).[1]

As I've said above, it's not the time to create the branch that
worries me; that said, Bazaar does not support hardlinks on Windows,
AFAIK.

> I would think this would be fine for anything requiring more than one
> commit.  In any case, I think it would be worth trying, you might find
> it's perfectly satisfactory.

For more serious changes yes, absolutely.

> If you have a series of one-commit changes, the cheapest way to do it
> would be with rebase.

That seems to be the consensus, yes.

    Juanma