Conflict while using "bzr pull"

[James Blackwell]

On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 12:28:23PM +1100, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, James Blackwell wrote:
> >On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 09:53:28AM -0500, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> >> Actually, I just do "rm * -R; bzr revert".  Because .bzr doesn't match
> >> the * glob, but almost everything revert cares about does.
> >
> >Grin. When I read his post, I read it as "rm -rf branch/*""
> >
> >> > What do people think, should we have a "bzr revert --force", or maybe a
> >> > "bzr revert --everything". I think it would be nice to have a single
> >> > command which says, "I know things are messed up right now, get me back
> >> > to exactly FOO, so I can continue with my life".
> >> 
> >> Perhaps "bzr revert --pristine" would delete all unversioned files as
> >> well as restoring source files to the correct names and contents.
> >
> >-1 to pristine. Though archers know it, it not in the common venacular.
> 
> -1 to both, because I think it'd be uncommon enough situation that bzr
> doesn't need to go to the trouble (and thus maintenance and testing load) to
> support it; "rm -R *; bzr revert" is good enough.

Hm. I think that having "rm -R *" as part of the normal work vocabulary
is someting that should be avoided unless necessary. I probably won't
cause much damage if I run "bzr revert --full" when in my home directory.
A "rm -R *" on the other hand....


-------------- 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/20051214/8c133afe/attachment.pgp