marrying bundle and directive? (Re: [MERGE] Merge directive format 2, Bundle format 4)
aaron.bentley at utoronto.ca
Mon Jul 2 06:11:46 BST 2007
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Martin Pool wrote:
> I think, ideally, we only need one command to do this, with options
> controlling just what is sent. Do we agree that there should be only
> one command?
I think it makes sense to have a single command for the baseline
functionality. We may also want additional commands that make specific
usages easier. As an example supplemental command, "bzr send" might
create a merge directive, then create a new message in my mail client,
with the directive as an attachment.
> 'bundle' is shorter than 'merge-directive' but neither name is really
> great because of contradictions like 'bundle --no-bundle'.
> How about a new name like 'emit'? (Most commands are verbs, it might
> be good if this was.) That lets us look agresh at what the syntax
> should be.
"Emit" doesn't seem very descriptive to me, but here's what I'd see ideally:
bzr emit [SUBMIT_BRANCH] [PUBLIC_BRANCH]
- -r specify range of revisions to merge
- -d source branch location
- -o filename of output file (otherwise, stdout)
- --no-bundle Don't include a bundle in the directive
- --no-preview Don't include a patch preview
Some more questionable options:
- --sign gpg-sign merge directive. This was intended for PQM use
- --mail-to This was intended to support PQM use of merge directives. It
doesn't seem ideal.
- --raw Emit a raw bundle. Is this useful?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the bazaar