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

[Alexander Belchenko]

Erik Bågfors пишет:
> On 8/1/06, Aaron Bentley <aaron.bentley at utoronto.ca> wrote:
>> Martin Pool wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> That's my experience, too.
>>
>> >  --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
>>
>> Interesting.  I think that might work.
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Not true.  Update will perform a tree merge of the upstream revision and
>> the local, uncommitted changes, and this merge can't easily be undone.
> 
> Well
> What would "bzr update -n" output? Anything?
> it seams like -n is useles without -l or -v.  

It should not to be useless. I think 'bzr update -n' should print what 
action it want to do. As example:

1) If branches in sync:
	$ bzr update -n
	Nothing to do.

2) If local branch miss something from master:
	$ bzr update -n
	Missed XXX revisions.	
	Your branch will be updated to rev.YYY

3) If local branch has local commits:
	$ bzr update -n
	Your branch has local commit(s).
	Your branch will be locally merged to master branch.

> So how about letting -v 
> and -l be
> --verbose, -v            show which files will be changed
> --list, -l         show a list of revisions to be applied
> 
> (see, same text :) )
> and let them both do dryrun automatically?
> 
> 
>> I suppose one option would be to take it in the opposite direction, and
>> create a 'preview' command, with subcommands for merge, update, etc.
>>
>> e.g. bzr preview merge * ~= bzr merge --dry-run *

I think it's overcomplicated.

--
Alexander