[BUG] when doing a bzr pull with conflicts

[Robert Collins]

On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 14:39 -0700, Rob Browning wrote:
> Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net> writes:
> 
> > That said, when you have divergent branches, you probably want to be
> > doing a 'merge' rather than a 'pull'. Pull is equivalent to CVS
> > update or SVN update, which only makes sense when you are still on
> > the same branch - i.e. you have not committed, which creates a
> > unique branch.
> 
> If I understood you correctly, then it seems like this might confuse
> some cvs and svn users since in cvs/svn, update actually does do
> something like a merge with the "current branch", and you would
> normally run update whether you've committed or not.
> 
> By the way, what happens if merge isn't given a BRANCH argument?  The
> "bzr help merge" that I have here doesn't appear to say explicitly,
> but if it defaults to the branch of the most recent merge or pull,
> then to a cvs/svn user, a bzr merge might seem more like a cvs/svn
> update than a bzr pull would.

This is true. One thing that I think we should introduce here is the
bound branches and shared branches workflow - thats what gives a 1:1
cvs-like experience - it keeps you on the same branch as someone else
and won't let you commit until you are up to date... so we may have an
update or some such command for these branches.

Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20050915/08f99665/attachment.pgp