Remote Merge

[John A Meinel]

Matthieu Moy wrote:
> John A Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> writes:
> 
>> That is what the "bzr merge" is for, just before your last commit and
>> push. Yes, someone could sneak in a commit in-between. But that is true
>> for any scm. (You can't commit unless you are up-to-date).
>>
>> Now, I'm not sure if "push" as implemented in bzrtools supports trees
>> that diverged and have since converged. 
> 
> It does not.
> 
> $ bzr push ../branch/                                                                                                                  
> bzr: ERROR: Local branch is not a newer version of remote branch.
> 
> Since it uses rsync to do the push, at the end of the push, the local
> and the remote tree *and* archive are identical. But yes, it should
> ultimately be able to do that.
> 
>> PS> One caveat, bzr push may not update the working tree, since that is
>> difficult to do to a remote tree.
> 
> How is it more difficult than updating .bzr ? Since you have the
> inventory anyway, you have the location of files, it shouldn't be more
> difficult than writing inside .bzr.
> 

I think the big issue is that we don't want to support *merging* in a
remote working directory.
If all you had to do was write out the copy that is in the repository,
that would be easy enough.
The hard part is that both pull and merge are able to merge the changes
into the working tree.
Which is a fuzzy operation, and thus difficult to do from remote.
Yes, it is possible. But it means changing merge() and WorkingTree to
support operating over a Transport.
If people feel it is a must, then we can do it. But that change would
propagate to a lot of other code.

John
=:->


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20051027/1496bb6e/attachment.pgp