There and back again

[Andrew Cowie]

On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 12:06 -0500, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> I would have thought annotate would handle that correctly. 

I have every confidence that Bazaar is doing the right thing under the
hood and that I am not losing data. I just asked the original question
based on wondering if one approach was more likely to be "more" future
proof than the other based on some internal implementation detail that
might not yet be user visible.

[ie, rumour has it that when doing a `bzr merge -r X..Y $other` for X
not in $this branch, the origin revids are quietly tucked into a
property somewhere but is otherwise not yet leveraged anywhere. If true,
that sounds like very appropriate "future proofing" to me. If not true,
then entirely irrelevant and we're just back to talking about textual
deltas]

gannotate is one of the tools we all use to forensically analyze what
has happened in a given branch, so I do want to optimize for helping it
help me if possible.

> At least with my 'simple_annotate' patch (just posted) or my annotation_policy
> patch (posted a while ago.)

Admittedly, I am only running bzr 1.5 and bzr-gtk 0.94; I'm pleased to
hear you've done in some work in this area and look forward to it in due
course.

Thanks for your time.

AfC
Sydney

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20080730/91510fcf/attachment.pgp