Order of merges and the appearance of the revision history

[John Arbash Meinel]

Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> Nicholas Allen wrote:
>> I'm so glad Bazaar does it the way it does. I really dislike the systems
>> where you have to interactively resolve the conflicts as you merge. It's
>> much nicer to see them all at once and take your time fixing them before
>> deciding to commit the merge (if at all).
> 
> I'm not talking about automation of the conflict resolution process, I
> just mean that with git, the pull command won't fall over if the two
> branches have diverged---it automatically performs a merge.  Any
> conflicts are left to be resolved manually, as I recall.
> 
> 

And if there aren't conflicts it automatically commits the changes. And
I don't know what 'pull' does if you have uncommitted changes.

With bzr 'merge' will fail if you have uncommitted changes, because it
confuses what is merged with what you've done. "pull" doesn't because it
is expressing a different user desire (bring me up-to-date), not (merge
the changes from the other branch).

John
=:->