creating checkouts, bound branches and standalone branches from an existing branch

[Jari Aalto]

Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net> writes:

> On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 11:55 -0600, John A Meinel wrote:
> Another possible way of doing it is having a 'local' commit and a 'full'
> commit, a-la bitkeepers 2-phase approach to sharing the code. A 'local'
> commit, like the 'edit & edit & edit' sequence above would not push the
> code into the main repository, and would be possible without updating to
> the tip of the shared branch. When you attempt a full commit though you
> have to be fully up to date, and the commit will be applied to the
> shared branch. If we do this, then I would want the 'full' commit to
> never automatically fallback to a local one, because we would have made
> the workflow explicit.

For me this sounds like quite natural workflow.

    ( local repository )   <= MASTER REPOSITORY
      |
      |
      Work, edit, check in to local (offline that is)

    ...

      Hm, I probably need to sync from MASTER to not to be left behind

      $ bzr sync --type=pull         # or whatever option

      some conflicts, resolve those and continue local edit

    ...                    

      I'm finished. Compiles good, all looks nice. commit to MASTER

      $ bzr sync --type=push         # or whatever option

Or something like that. When I gain experience I may be able to
"isolate" the local change to separate local branches and then commit
those that have been finished to MASTER one by one (according to added
features).

Jari