[MERGE] Branch format 6

[Aaron Bentley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Erik Bågfors wrote:
> On 2/12/07, Aaron Bentley <aaron.bentley at utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
>> Erik Bågfors wrote:
>>
>> >> I would think the way to do it is
>> >>   cd mainline
>> >>   bzr pull
>> >>   bzr merge ../mystuff
>> >>   bzr commit -m "Merged my stuff into mainline"
>> >>   bzr push
>> >
>> >
>> > I don't think this one is so good because it's possible that someone
>> > committed to mainline in the meantime.
>>
>> The same problem exists with bound branches, it's just that the recovery
>> is different.  If push failed, you'd uncommit, pull, commit and push.

> bzr pull
> bzr merge ../otherbranch
> review
> bzr commit -m merge
> bzr push -> error message, can't do it
> bzr uncommit
> bzr revert

No need.

> bzr pull
> bzr merge ../otherbranch

No need.

> review
> bzr commit -m merge
> bzr push

You've added stuff beyond what I said.  It really is uncommit, pull,
commit, push.  Perhaps you're not aware that uncommit restores pending
merges, or that pull works just fine in directories with pending merges?

> Compared to
> bzr update
> bzr merge ../otherbranch
> review
> bzr commit -m merge ---> Error message, run bzr update
> bzr update
> review
> bzr commit -m merge
> 
> I find the second version nicer :)

I expect this to be a rare circumstance, and I think update is evil
because it can damage uncommitted changes.  So I would rather stick with
merge.

You're arguing that using "bind/unbind" is no good for people who don't
use checkouts, and so we should have "merge --reverse", right?  How
would merge --reverse be any better?  It would be worse, IMO, because of
what would happen if you reverted.

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFF0Np10F+nu1YWqI0RArINAJ49lvmluBCUI+v0GO/I3r6f1G5dFwCdFHqf
eLLPrfpor+HEOAkve8mbn2I=
=eNHk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----