pull and merge use case

[Jan Hudec]

On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 13:17:54 -0500, James Blackwell wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 11:56:16AM -0600, John A Meinel wrote:
> I personally want to see pull & merge replaced with pull & switch. 
> 
> bzr pull:
> 
> 	converged  same order  action
> 	----------------------------------
> 	 no          n/a       merge
> 	 yes         no        merge
         yes         no        switch

The merge is trivial, since there are no changes. But merge implies making
commit (because it adds the parent and that can only be got rid of by
commiting), which is not needed here.

> 	 yes         yes       pull
> 
> bzr switch:
> 
>    * Takes potentially out of order tree and reorders for target
> 
>    * Puts local commits at the end of the invenotry.

That would certainly not match expectations from other version control
systems. Those expectations are (at least I would expect that):

foo$ bzr switch /another/branch

being equivalent to:

foo$ bzr diff > ../foo.diff
foo$ cd ..
$ rm -rf foo
$ bzr branch /another/branch foo
$ cd foo
foo$ patch -p1 < ../foo.diff

... yes, it IS a DESTRUCTIVE operation for standalone branches. It is not
a destructive operation in case of bound branches and archive branch
checkouts.

-- 
						 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb at ucw.cz>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20051122/2db792d7/attachment.pgp