[patch] fix bug 48136 bzr status, diff, etc do not work properly after remote push

[Cheuksan Edward Wang]

On 10/28/06, John Arbash Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> wrote:
>
> Aaron Bentley wrote:
> > John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> >>> Aaron Bentley wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Aaron Bentley wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Using heavyweight checkouts instead of lightweight ones with
> remote
> >>>>>>> branches is just a convention.  So doing this does require a
> connection
> >>>>>>> to the branch, which is a new requirement.
> >>>>>> Well, at present because of the way 'BranchReference' is defined,
> we
> >>>>>> always connect to the remote branch, for any lightweight checkout.
> >>>> Right.  That's why I phrased it as I did.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> out of date (use "bzr update"):
> >>>>    branch is at: "Fixed a really nasty bug"
> >>>>
> >>>> But I'm fine to put it in as the warning, and then worry about
> tweakage.
> >>>>
> >>>> Aaron
> >>>
> >>> Ooooh a summary line of the last commit. Fancy. :) (I really do like
> it).
> >>>
> >>> So, would you be +1 if we got rid of the warning in 'diff', and then
> >>> encourage Cheuksan to extend his patch to change 'bzr status' to
> conform
> >>> to this?
> >
> > Yes, that would suit me well.
> >
> > Aaron
>
> Alright. Just to keep things rolling, that is what I did. I merged
> Cheuksan's patch, reverted the diff changes, and submitted it to the pqm.
>
> Just to mention, though. That 'bzr status' *also* doesn't need to
> connect to the remote branch. It does pretty much the same thing as bzr
> diff, only in summary mode. So it actually has even less need to connect
> to the remote branch, since it never needs to extract the file texts.
>
> I suppose if you have pending merges, it needs to connect to get the log
> messages, etc.
>
> Though dirstate will actually be caching all of the parent trees, and
> could conceivably cache the commit messages as well. So neither diff nor
> status would have any need to connect to the remote branch.
>
> This isn't truly valid, since you really need to cache the log messages
> for all of the ancestry of revisions that you might be merging, etc.
>
> And of course, both of them need to connect to the branch if you supply
> any sort of revision specifier. Which is also interesting, in that if
> you have an out-of-date working tree, you could do 'bzr status -r -1'
> and it should report changes.
>
> Anyway, I'd like to request that Cheuksan update the 'bzr status' code,
> so that it also checks the master if it exists. And changes the output
> to be like Aaron outlined.


OK. I'll try to do that in a few days.


But for now, 'bzr status' is a lot more helpful when the tree is out of
> date.
>
> John
> =:->
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20061028/32cd6358/attachment.htm