Merge progress

[Harri Salokorpi]

Hello,

On Thursday 21 April 2005 00:19, you wrote:
> I'm flexible on syntax; I'll adopt whatever syntax is recommended or
> commonly used. 

Yup, that would help with consistency. I did not find any discussion about 
this, so it might be a good idea to sketch a rough idea of the "best 
practice" before the merge tools hit the town :)

> But when I'm done, I expect the common case to be
> bzr merge ../other
>
> That would determine the BASE revision by scanning the cwd and ../other,
> and determining who merged who last.

I think mainline maintainers like Martin will just pick a small set of changes 
instead of doing full merge. Those tracking the mainline will probably (as 
you said) just merge all changes.

> Or even
> bzr merge
> That would merge from the branch I branched from, or from whatever I
> merged from last.

That sounds like a convenient way of shooting yourself into foot if you have 
uncommitted local changes :) Some tools show help if operation is called 
without parameters (svn co, for example), so someone unfamiliar with bzr 
might nuke his local changes by accident unless some kind of safeguard is put 
in place (refuse to merge if there are uncommitted local changes).

However, that kind of shortcut should be quite useful if you are just tracking 
upstream with few minor changes in your local branch.

-Harri