bzr missing in 0.7

[Martin Pool]

On 08/05/2006, at 9:40 PM, Joseph Wakeling wrote:

> I'm hoping someone can give me some advice on the "bzr missing"  
> command.
>  I'm still using 0.7 at the moment but will upgrade shortly. ;-)

Hi Joseph,

The functionality of missing is basically the same in both releases.   
(But you should still upgrade when you can.)
>
> The result was that my experimental branch was found to be  
> "missing" the
> commit of the merged-in changes.  I don't think there was any actual
> code difference between the two branches after the merge.  Here's an
> example of one of the "missing" things:
>
[...]
> What I want to check is (1) did I do anything wrong in merging in the
> changes (I just used bzr merge followed by bzr commit)

That looks fine.

> and (2) if not,
> can someone give a bit of an explanation of the logic of the "bzr
> missing" command.  My understanding was that it's meant to tell you  
> what
> patches are missing from one branch or another, but in this case the
> merge brought in all the missing patches; but it's as if the merge has
> been counted as a Should I have explicitly told bzr merge which  
> patches
> to bring in?patch in its own right.

Assume you were going to say "as if the merge has been counted as a  
revision in its own right" - and yes, it is.  That's because the  
particular way the merge was done does contain some new information  
(even if it was just auto-merged); you might have made some fixups to  
resolve conflicts or to make the merge work properly.  That  
information has not come back into the merged-in branch yet.  So you  
now have three options:

  1- do nothing, be happy, next time you merge it will work fine.

  2- "bzr pull" the merge into your experimental branch; the  
experimental branch will now be a new branch starting from this  
point.  (You can't do this if you have already done new work on the  
experimental branch since the merge.)

  3- "bzr merge" back into the experimental branch.

-- 
Martin