Question/idea about multiple developers committing to one branch

[David Allouche]

John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> Have you tried:
> 
> $ bzr merge ../mainline
> #Resolve conflicts
> $ bzr commit -m 'merged mainline'
> $ bzr diff -rancestor:../mainline
> 
> ancestor: says to use the common ancestor between this branch and
> another branch. After merging the mainline, the common ancestor is
> typically the last revision in the mainline, for fairly obvious reasons.

Every time I tried to use the ancestor: revspec, I did not do what I
expected. But the last time I tried was a long time ago (several
months), so maybe the behavior of the software and my expectation are
more consistent now :)

This solution forces to commit _before_ reviewing the changes. That
means that "uncommit" becomes a routine operation, and that would be a
bad thing.

> I realize it is a little bit more to type, and we can try to make this
> sort of thing easier. (I'm not opposed to merge --to, I just think we
> already have a solution for your particular use case.)

I have a fairly strong conditioning to consider that review is what
happens before the commit. Having to commit to be able to review seems
seriously backwards to me.

-- 
                                                            -- ddaa

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20061203/33590e7f/attachment.pgp