On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 05:25:53 -0000, Andrew Bennetts <email address hidden> wrote:
> Considering that so many branches on Launchpad are 2a format now it
> seems to me that bzr >= 2.0 is almost a requirement anyway. Please tell
> me I'm right ;)
That's a good point. It may be that the archive we are using to backport
bzr-builder already has a bzr in for other reasons, and so that is
getting picked up.
Checking...
It does not, so indeed the newer branch formats can't be built on older
releases.
Depending on how we fix this we could then not put the new classes in to
bzr-builder.
> A compromise be to say "merge-part" is not available unless you
> are using a new-enough bzr. (Again, probably >= 2.0 with the help of a
> backport in bzr-builder.)
I don't fancy that, but it would be an option, yes.
On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 05:25:53 -0000, Andrew Bennetts <email address hidden> wrote:
> Considering that so many branches on Launchpad are 2a format now it
> seems to me that bzr >= 2.0 is almost a requirement anyway. Please tell
> me I'm right ;)
That's a good point. It may be that the archive we are using to backport
bzr-builder already has a bzr in for other reasons, and so that is
getting picked up.
Checking...
It does not, so indeed the newer branch formats can't be built on older
releases.
Filed
https:/ /bugs.edge. launchpad. net/launchpad- code/+bug/ 603615
about this.
Depending on how we fix this we could then not put the new classes in to
bzr-builder.
> A compromise be to say "merge-part" is not available unless you
> are using a new-enough bzr. (Again, probably >= 2.0 with the help of a
> backport in bzr-builder.)
I don't fancy that, but it would be an option, yes.
Thanks,
James