Conflict while using "bzr pull"

[James Blackwell]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 08:53:47AM +1100, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
> >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....
> 
> My point is that it's not *normal* work vocabulary.  Of everyone on the
> list, only John and I reported experiencing this problem.  It sounds like
> it's a bug in pull, if anything.  If that's the case, then it needs fixing,
> not a new command to act as workaround for when it happens.

I agree with this specific case but disagree in the general case. This
particular problem is resolvable. So sure, define the proper behaviour and
--full isn't needed for this particular problem once the bug is set.

There is still a need for --full for a different reason. Many sorts of
problems can (and likely will) rear up from time to time as people bump
into undefined behaviours. We know a priori that when users start bumping
into undefined behaviour that the right solution is to expose the problem
so that the proper behaviour can be defined. 

The user in the field can then avoid the undefined behaviour until the bug
is fixed and the behaviour is properly defined. In the meantime, he needs
to be able to reset that branch so that he can still get back to work.


-------------- 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/aef194ee/attachment.pgp