[MERGE] Deprecate last-revision and pending_merges.

[Robert Collins]

On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 21:31 -0400, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1


> It might be reasonable to rename last_revision to basis_revision, but I
> don't think it makes sense to remove it.

basis_revision might be nice, but I'd want it to throw if there is no
left most parent - to avoid this inconsistency where we consider there
to be an implicit tree sometimes and not others. (Thats another thing I
dislike about last_revision).

> In fact, I was actually considering adding a basis_revision method to
> all trees, but for RevisionTrees, it would return
> RevisionTree.get_revision_id().  That would simplify the merge code a
> bit, because we would only need trees and repositories.  Branches
> wouldn't be needed.
> 
> > I think that the code that is harder is temporary -  if we change
> > WorkingTree to have an explicit first parent of 'empty:' when first
> > created, and thus to never have no parents, then the code that is harder
> > at the moment will become safe again, without the overlaid behaviour
> > between sequence-and-snapshot that last-revision has.
> 
> I agree that endpoint sounds nice.  Does retaining last_revision hamper
> you from reaching it?  If not, can we keep it 'till then at least?

I'd prefer to remove it but will go with consensus on this. - so John,
Martin, anyone else, what do you think?

-Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
-------------- 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 : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060906/1d608781/attachment.pgp