how to revert update operation

Robert Collins robertc at
Thu Jul 20 03:09:39 BST 2006

On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 23:24 +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Robert Collins [Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:25:34 +1000]:
> > But the goal statement is still identical:
> >  - set your basis to be the tip of the master
> >  - turn all your local changes into a merge into the master
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Maybe this sounds stupid, but why that? Is just it can't be implemented
> in other way, or don't you agree that users would expect/like just
> having their commits "pushed" (instead of merged) after upgrading to the
> tip of master? (Though I don't know how/when would one handle
> conflicts.)
> Just curious.

It would be *extremely* surprising to users if 'update' were to change
the master branch.

For clarity, here are some cases:
 - local commits, no changes in the master -> update is a no-op. You can
commit, or do push, and the local commits will go to the master.
 - no local commits, changes in the master -> update degrades to 'pull
 - local commits, changes in the master -> update is the morale
equivalent of 'bzr pull --overwrite; bzr merge -r revid:
$LASTLOCALCOMMIT' - except it still keeps uncommitted local changes too.
After this is done, you need to commit to make your local work be put
into the master.


GPG key available at: <>.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : 

More information about the bazaar mailing list