want a hook fired for all wt changes

When use command 'bzr co --lightweight' then bazaar not call any hooks - not post_pull, not post_change_branch_tip.

Neither of those events (pulling or branch tip changing) occur when a
checkout --lightweight is done.

So this isn't a bug in bzr from that regard.

Perhaps you need a new hook point?

-Rob

Probably that it is necessary new hook but command checkout fire post_change_branch_tip and post_pull hooks why here not to make also?

On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 08:04 +0000, Eugene Tarasenko wrote:
> Probably that it is necessary new hook but command checkout fire
> post_change_branch_tip and post_pull hooks why here not to make also?

Because those events don't happen.

-Rob

Ok, I need any hook on 'bzr co --lightweight'.

Sorry, I wasn't clear: in this case, I was doing a pull from within a
lightweight checkout.

The problem in this case is that the brach base is not the location of
the working tree. A lightweight checkout is simply a working tree
whose branch was elsewhere (I hadn't realized this until now; I had
thought they were much more invoked and different). The externals
should be checked out into the working tree, but are being checked out
into the branch.

I came across this as doing an update from within a lightweight
checkout did not update the externals. It's perfectly legit to do a
pull from a lightweight checkout, isn't it?

Perhaps there should be an explicit update-externals command?
Likewise, it could be desirable to do a pull of the main branch
without updating the externals; "pull --ignore-externals"?

Brian.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Brian de Alwis wrote:
> Sorry, I wasn't clear: in this case, I was doing a pull from within a
> lightweight checkout.
>
> The problem in this case is that the brach base is not the location of
> the working tree. A lightweight checkout is simply a working tree
> whose branch was elsewhere (I hadn't realized this until now; I had
> thought they were much more invoked and different). The externals
> should be checked out into the working tree, but are being checked out
> into the branch.
>
> I came across this as doing an update from within a lightweight
> checkout did not update the externals. It's perfectly legit to do a
> pull from a lightweight checkout, isn't it?
>
> Perhaps there should be an explicit update-externals command?
> Likewise, it could be desirable to do a pull of the main branch
> without updating the externals; "pull --ignore-externals"?
>
> Brian.
>

It sounds more like externals needs a working-tree level hook that fires
whenever something occurs that it would want to update the working tree.
This happens a lot more often than just pull and update. (revert, for
example, should probably have some sort of meaning for externals, too.)

John
=:->

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAksGtwsACgkQJdeBCYSNAAPJ9wCfYkHZNccBFfqripkR5k1uvana
7REAoI6g8wBvnYTTwloLeWAEgJRSw3ob
=LO7/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2009/11/20 John A Meinel <email address hidden>
> It sounds more like externals needs a working-tree level hook that fires
> whenever something occurs that it would want to update the working tree.
> This happens a lot more often than just pull and update. (revert, for
> example, should probably have some sort of meaning for externals, too.)

It much better than to get a separate command

Brian de Alwis wrote:
> Perhaps there should be an explicit update-externals command?
> Likewise, it could be desirable to do a pull of the main branch
> without updating the externals; "pull --ignore-externals"?

You can use bzr pull --no-plugins