[MERGE] Deprecate last-revision and pending_merges.

[John Arbash Meinel]

Robert Collins wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 19:49 +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
>>> I feel quite strongly that the following combination is OK:
>>>  * the implicit root tree has no parents.
>>>  * last_revision/basis_revision/basis_tree on the implicit root
>> throws
>>>  * a new WorkingTree has a basis which is the implicit root
>> I think that combination would be good - safe, but also simple in the
>> common case.  So are you OK to leave last_revision as is until those
>> changes are in place? 
> 
> Yes. I think my point was that I'd rather leave last_revision as is
> until we can do basis_revision as i describe above, rather than brining
> in basis_revision which is no better than last_revision.
> 
> I'll remove the deprecation for last_revision, but not pending_merges -
> does that have everyones agreement ?
> 
> -Rob

Honestly I think last_revision is the wrong name for both objects. Since
for a Branch it means 'tip_revision' (so 'last' means the one that comes
after all the others), but for a WorkingTree it means
'previous_revision' (so 'last' means the one just before this).

Also, your original patch didn't actually include the TreeBuilder class.
(I just realized I wanted to see what it did, but couldn't find it
anywhere). You may want to add the alias:

commit=commit --strict

Now that Aaron's optparse changes have been merged, you can even do:

bzr commit --no-strict -m foo

To override it.

Anyway, I'm fine with your changes.

John
=:->


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060907/8bb1b925/attachment.pgp