uncommit and bound branches

[Martin Pool]

On 30 Mar 2006, Aaron Bentley <aaron.bentley at utoronto.ca> wrote:
> Erik Bågfors wrote:
> > Say that I have a central branch, and have two developer having done a
> > checkout on that branch (a bound branch checkout).  They are both up
> > to date and now one developer uncommits the last commit.  What happens
> > then?
> > 
> > I assume that the other developer has to run bzr update and the commit
> > will show up as if he did "commit --local" on it?  Is that good?
> 
> It's bad, because it will resurrect the uncommitted revision.
>
> > Would it be better to say "sorry, can't uncommit with a bound branch/checkout"

What we really want is "sorry, can't uncommit a revision someone else
relies on".  The fact that it's in a bound branch is really irrelevant,
except that it makes it somewhat more likely they'll already have seen
it.

> Maybe in the shared-branch case, but it's too useful in the
> branch-per-developer case.  Even in the shared-branch case, there should
> be a better way of handling it.


-- 
Martin