[rfc] 'bzr missing' for checkout could use master branch for comparing histories

[Erik Bågfors]

On 8/1/06, Martin Pool <mbp at canonical.com> wrote:
> On  1 Aug 2006, Alexander Belchenko <bialix at ukr.net> wrote:
> > IIRC, in CVS 'update -n' show list of files that will be updated. Not
> > revisions log.
> >
> > What about syntax: 'bzr missing --master' ?
> > It's will be clear enough to specify that user want to inspect
> > difference with master branch, not with pull location.
>
> +1 on the general concept of being able to find out what needs to be
> brought in from the master branch.
>
> I think missing has some problems as it currently exists.  We should
> think about them before adding more features.
>
> I find I almost always want to just know about the revisions on one
> side (either --mine or --theirs).  The current default of showing both
> makes it just hard to read the output.  Missing pretty much corresponds
> to a preview of what will be done by push or pull or merge, and wanting
> additional behaviour corresponding to update just makes that resemblance
> stronger.
>
> Rather than duplicate all these cases in 'missing' options I think we
> should just put them in the corresponding commands, as Erik suggested
> for 'update -n'.  However I think we can refine this into several
> different options
>
>  --verbose, -v      show which files will be changed
>  --list, -l         show a list of revisions to be applied
>  --dry-run, -n      just show what would be done
>
> Then 'update -ln' should give the desired result.  This has the good
> side effect that 'update -l' will often be interesting in its own right.
>
> One risk with this is that people may omit '-n' and update when they
> don't want to.  I think it's a tolerable risk, and no unrecoverable data
> is lost.

I like this!

/Erik
-- 
google talk/jabber. zindar at gmail.com
SIP-phones: sip:erik_bagfors at gizmoproject.com
sip:17476714687 at proxy01.sipphone.com