reverse merge....

[Robert Collins]

On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 21:37 +0200, Erik Bågfors wrote:


> > But I think Aaron has a good point with making '--local' the default,
> > and then they can use the regular 'update' to work with the remote branch.
> 
> I tend to agree.
> 
> > I really do think it is much cleaner to have an upstream checkout, and
> > another working directory. It also gets them prepared when they want to
> > work on more than one branch at a time.
> 
> Me also, my suggestion (which is how I plan on working myself) is to
> have one checkout, then branch that checkout into a new branch, hack
> in, then merge back to the checkout when I feel ready.
> 
> That feels very natural for me, but people do not understand why you
> should need multiple branches on local machine.
> 
> People coming from cvs/svn doesn't quite think the same way about
> branches as I do (ie. branches are good, create many :) )

Do I understand their complaint correctly:
'On CVS I only need one checkout, but here I need a checkout and a
branch, OR, I need to give --local to commit, OR, I cannot commit
offline'?


> > But if you are getting a lot of negative feedback about it, I'm sure
> > there are other things we can do.
> 
> Personally, I really like the "checkout and commit with --local being
> default" model.

I think thats a good model - if most of your work is offline, using
commit --local as default, and passing --not-local when you are online,
should work well.

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/20060912/f4389b52/attachment.pgp