Bug or Feature? Nothing to merge still shows "pending merge"

Lukáš Lalinský lalinsky at gmail.com
Sun Nov 4 10:18:52 GMT 2007


On Ne, 2007-11-04 at 14:15 +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 17:09 -0700, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
> > - From my perspective, the history between two branches will
> > never converge because you always see a pending merge even
> > when there is nothing to do.
> > 
> >   $ bzr status
> >   pending merges:
> >     Gerald Carter 2007-11-03 merge again
> > 
> > So is this non-convergence a Bug?  or a feature?
> 
> Bug I think; a merge that changed nothing - no file convergence and no
> new content, should trigger the 'nothing to do' - either at commit or at
> merge time.

FWIW, I disagree with this. A new revision is a new content, it might
contain metadata very useful to the branch (only fixed bugs for now, but
new revision properties might be added in the future). If people want to
use merge blindly to sync two or more branches, they should use 'merge
--pull' instead to fast-forward merge commits like this.

Lukas





More information about the bazaar mailing list