On Jun 19, Konstantin Osipov wrote:
> * Sergei Golubchik <serg@stripped> [10/06/19 18:29]:
> > > > > Why was that done?
> > > > I guess, somebody upgraded innodb_plugin in MySQL source tree to
> > > > a new version (from innodb svn, perhaps?), and instead of
> > > > replacing files under bzr nose (rm -rf innodb_plugin; cp -r
> > > > ~/new/innodb_plugin .) decided to inform bzr that old tree is
> > > > deleted (bzr rm -force innodb_plugin).
> > > Hm, I spoke with Vasil Dimov, and neither of us knew that this
> > > option exists. AFAIU it would be an unsupported hack to do it this
> > > way?
> > I'm sorry, I don't follow.
> > What option ? Do what what way ?
> You're not supposed to manipulate with the contents of a bzr tree
> using filesystem commands.
It's a working tree, I can do there anything I want (unless I touch .bzr
When you edit a file in vim you "manipulate with the contents of a bzr
tree" too :)
If one would delete old innodb_plugin directory and put a new one
instead, then bzr would think that files are simply modified, not
deleted/created - bzr does not track inode numbers of files or anything.
The effect would be exactly the same as if one diff'ed old and new
innodb_plugin directories and applied the patch.
The history of files would be preserved, the merges would be much