marrying bundle and directive? (Re: [MERGE] Merge directive format 2, Bundle format 4)

[Martin Pool]

On 7/2/07, Ian Clatworthy <ian.clatworthy at internode.on.net> wrote:
> Adeodato Simó wrote:
>
> > Hm, this is probably coming late to the party, and I hope nobody gets
> > offended (feel free to ignore me instead :-P). But since I sense this
> > one of those "speak now or shut up forever" moments, I'll speak up.
>
> Thanks for speaking up.
>
> > I *personally* think that, from an UI point of view (and UI is
> > important), there should be a single command, despite both being
> > separate things inside bzrlib.
>
> I tend to agree. At a minimum, having one command removes the need to
> explain when to use bundle vs merge-directive, something I certainly
> didn't get when I started using Bazaar.
>
> > So, in my opinion, there would be a single command, preferably `bundle`,
> > that would take care of all the possible use cases, always producing
> > merge directives (almost always, anyway):
> >
> >   1. `bzr bundle ../upstream.branch >../submit.diff`
> >
> >     Keeps quite the same semantics and format as now (=> users won't be
> >     surprised), and it's the canonical thing to do to send patches
> >     upstream.
>
> In the current UI, I feel that bundle has a lower barrier to adoption
> than merge-directive mostly because merge-directive requires a source
> URL while bundle doesn't.

I agree too.  It seems like we could allow additional options on the
bundle command to set the public branch, submit branch and so on.

-- 
Martin