merge vs pull (was What we did at UBZ)

[Martin Pool]

On 22 Nov 2005, James Blackwell <jblack at merconline.com> wrote:
> This is a good point that has been mentioned by Aaron before. My thoughts
> are something like: 
> 
> ~$ bzr branch http://offin.thevoid/coolcode cool
> ~$ cd cool
> cool/ $ bzr pull 
> bzr: Nothing new
> 
> cool/ $ sleep 86400
> cool/ $ bzr pull
> bzr: Changes applied and saved.
> 
> cool/ $ echo "hi" > hi; bzr add hi; bzr commit -m "added hi"
> cool/ $ bzr pull
> bzr: Nothing new

At the moment, this one will tell you the branches have diverged (and
they have.)

> cool/ $ sleep 86400
> 
> cool/ $ bzr pull
> bzr: Changes applied. Review changes and commit

You don't show the person committing here.  Are they leaving the merged
changes uncommitted?

> cool/ $ bzr pull

What did this do?

> cool/ $ sleep 86400
> cool/ $ echo "bye" > bye; bzr add bye; bzr commit -m "added bye"

So this new file is mixed in with the previous merge?  Why?

> cool/ $ bzr pull --pretend-converged
> bzr: Changes applied and saved

Sure but what is that option supposed to *do*?

> Right now, bzr help is 13 commands. That's pretty good, and a very, very
> powerful selling point. I think that its reasonably possible to get that
> down to ten commands without breaking new minds, by combining three
> commands -- pull, branch and merge, into one command.

Well, combining three into one would only get it to 11 commands. :-)

More importantly, having few commands is not a win if the behaviour of
those commands is unpredictable.  It's not an end in itself.  It seems
that a combined pull/merge would be somewhat unpredictable both in
whether you later need to commit, and in whether it forms a rolled-up
commit or not.

-- 
Martin
-------------- 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/20051123/9c6dde34/attachment.pgp