[MERGE][0.15] Handle empty merge directive texts
aaron.bentley at utoronto.ca
Mon Mar 26 17:46:13 BST 2007
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> Aaron Bentley wrote:
>>> The patch is fine.
>> Please don't use +1 conditional when you think the patch is fine.
>> Conditional means that there is something I must change in order to have
>> your +1.
> To me it means "+1, but I have a comment, though if you agree and make
> the change, it doesn't need another review".
To me, it additionally means "but if you disagree, then we need to
discuss it further before it can be merged."
> I can use +1 for "I agree, but there is something I want to discuss".
> But I always felt like that was "merge it".
No, I never intended that. I invented +1 conditional because people
were constantly saying: "+1 if you make this change", which implies "and
not +1 unless you make it". You can always put nice-to-haves in the
comment for a +1. But nice-to-haves can usually be added later, too.
>> The first line gives a pretty clear idea of what they just tried to
>> merge. If they want to look at the whole thing, they would probably
>> prefer to do so in a pager or editor.
> True enough. Though we don't give them a way to review it in a pager or
> editor if they are using it from remote....
Perhaps we should make "bzr cat" more robust.
> (What I would really rather prefer is a check for something that looks
> like a merge directive, but maybe is newer/older than what we expect)
That's certainly a reasonable request.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the bazaar