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

John Arbash Meinel john at arbash-meinel.com
Sun Nov 4 18:04:55 GMT 2007


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
> 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

There is 'merge --pull', but that also changes the mainline history. So it
isn't a complete solution.

I would probably say that "bzr merge ../other" should notice if the other tree
is identical to this one, and the only change is a single tip revision. In
which case it could abort the merge unless '--force' was supplied.

This *lets* you force a "and I really have a bugfix" revision, but it defaults
to not ping-ponging.

John
=:->

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHLgnGJdeBCYSNAAMRAitHAKDXrKOwi03OssEQFq9D9bQd9r5ZwwCgva3i
56x+6f1oSATV4izc99wUVvY=
=Axd/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




More information about the bazaar mailing list