[BUG] No-op merge broken
mbp at canonical.com
Fri Oct 6 00:50:57 BST 2006
On 05/10/2006, at 21:39 , John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> I haven't tracked into it, but there was an old discussion on IRC
> that I
> missed until today. Basically it mentioned that after merging and
> committing, if you merge back into the other branch, you can commit
> that, and ping-pong ad nauseum.
> I thought I remembered the second merge used to state 'Nothing to do.'
> I tried this with a copy of bzr-0.8, and it still created a no-change
> merge, so if this an actual bug, it was made a while ago.
> Are we intending to add logic to avoid ping-pong merging? (I know we
> have 'bzr pull' but that loses branch identity)
It's always worked this way. The thing is that there really is
something you can merge, being the other person's commit message
etc. It's perhaps not very interesting though. Of course the person
who merged might have changed something in their merge.
The original concept was that Bazaar will avoid ping-pong merges by
providing push/pull. As you say that now converges but isn't that
the right thing to do?
Is something else really needed?
More information about the bazaar