[PATCH][UPDATED] Re: make "merge" work nicely with revno:N:patch

[Matthieu Moy]

[ might be a multipost, I'm using gmane and I don't see my initial message ]

John Arbash Meinel <john <at> arbash-meinel.com> writes:

> Matthieu Moy wrote:
> > Aaron Bentley <aaron.bentley <at> utoronto.ca> writes:
> > 
> >> There's no reason you shouldn't be able to do "bzr diff
> >> http://bazaar-vcs.org/bzr.dev -r -5..0".  You can't, but that's arguably
> >> a bug.
> > 
> > That would be nice also, still, it doesn't provide the solution when
> > the revisions belong to different branches.
> 
> Does yours actually work in that circumstance?

Yes, it does and have a testcase for this.

> I find it a little convoluted that suppling 'revno:' allows you to
> specify the branch, but only a revision number. There is no way to
> specify a branch & a revision id, for example.

revid:N:branch can be implemented similarly. It would probably almost never be
used but can be nice for completeness.

> > And it makes the same UI problem. What does
> > 
> > $ bzr cat http://some/branch/some/file -r branch:http://some-other.branch/
> > 
> > mean for example ?
> 
> Well, in the current 'bzr', it means grab the revision id of the tip of
> 'http://some-other.branch', and look up 'some/file' in
> 'http://some/branch' at the specified revision.

Yes, but I don't find this intuitive at all.

> > That said, for log, I just tried "bzr log -r revid:xxx..revid:yyy",
> > with xxx and yyy beign two unrelated merges in a branch, it seems to
> > fall back silently to "bzr log".
> > 
> 
> Well, log has a couple bugs in it, but what would you define as valid
> behaviour if source and target are unrelated merges?

I don't know what would be a correct behavior. Probably fail with an appropriate
error message, but surely not falling back _silently_ to a different behavior.

My implementation gives this appropriate error message, but I agree that this is
not the right place to put it. First I raise an error on some potentially valid
behaviors, and what's more, it doesn't solve the problem of unrelated revisions
in the same branch (my test above).

-- 
Matthieu