[RFC] Separating last-revision from parents

[Martin Pool]

On  5 Feb 2007, Aaron Bentley <aaron.bentley at utoronto.ca> wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:
> > The current behaviour of update and revert is in my mind 'correct' -
> > that is, we can probably improve it, buts its doing what I intended.
> > 
> > I wanted the following to hold true for any tree:
> >  'bzr update && bzr revert && bzr info -> no missing revisions, no local
> > edits, no new local commits. 
> 
> I don't want that.
> 
> When I commit locally, I expect that I'm setting a save point that I can
> get back to.  If I'm not certain that update is doing to DTRT, I'll
> commit locally, and then revert if I get into trouble.  From my
> perspective, this behavior is definitely out of the frying pan, into the
> fire.
> 
> I'm not sure why you want bzr update && revert to throw away local
> commits.  Perhaps you could elaborate on that.  But it sounds like
> perhaps it could be achieved more conveniently with a flag to update,
> anyhow.

Or maybe a flag to revert?

-- 
Martin