Recommended use of Bazaar for single-committer multiple-machine projects?
mary at puzzling.org
Fri Dec 12 20:16:52 GMT 2008
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008, Viktor Nagy wrote:
> I have never used shelve/unshelve, but couldn't you work around
> --local with it and then simply update your branches?
It seems like I could, although "update" and "commit" give errors about
not being synced that are useful to me: I would have to remember to
unshelve stuff manually, as I understand them.
Really one of the major reasons for the model I use is that I don't (and
perhaps don't want to, I'll see) maintain a giant in-head model of what
branches/code I have on what machine and whether I've merged and pushed
it. I have enough "oh bugger I've turned my laptop off and left it at
home and now I will need to spend 90 minutes re writing that code" as it
> As I am the only one updating the central repo merging is not
> necessary as long as I follow the above steps. --local is not needed
> either as I use branches not just checkouts.
I mentioned in the original post that moving away from checkouts all
together quickly had me trying to understand and resolve criss-cross
merges. Andrew Bennetts told me that his understanding was that for the
kind or project I'm using this for checkouts are a better design for
exactly this reason (even if ). I am not clear on if this is a concensus
We may have slightly different uses though, since you talk about 'having
to' work from different machines: I don't do this either as rarely or
reluctantly as 'having to' implies: for this project I have three
regular work machines, not a main laptop and two machines I might have
to work from occasionally.
More information about the bazaar