[BUG] Bind updates the branch, but not the working tree
John A Meinel
john at arbash-meinel.com
Wed May 10 16:35:02 BST 2006
Martin Pool wrote:
> On 8 May 2006, John A Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> wrote:
>> Submitted as a bug report:
>> I just did a 'bzr bind' of a branch that was out of date. After binding
>> 'bzr log' claims to see all 13 revisions. And 'bzr st' says that
>> everything is fine. However, none of the changes have actually been
>> applied to my working tree. I still need to run 'bzr update'.
>> The bug is that "cmd_bind" only opens the respective branches, and not
>> the working tree. And Branch.pull() only updates the branch information.
>> I'm not sure the correct place to fix this, since Branch isn't ever
>> supposed to know about a working tree.
>> Would it be best to add a 'bind()' member to WorkingTree and have
>> cmd_bind use that if possible?
> Perhaps it would be best, as lifeless recently suggested, that bind does
> not implicitly update either the branch or the working tree.
> That still leaves the question of what log and status should do to
> indicate that your working directory is out-of-date with the branch.
> Log is a bit of a tough call, but if run in a working directory should
> probably tell you what's come into the working directory. Status should
> probably tell if the working directory is out of date.
I'm probably okay with bind not pushing & pulling. I don't really like
his idea of 'if diverged, commit works as though they weren't bound'.
I'm fine with 'if diverged, commit works as though previous commits were
It might be the behavior that after one commit --local, the branches no
longer stay in sync. I haven't ever had any cause to use --local to
really have a feel for it.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060510/e9cec827/attachment.pgp
More information about the bazaar