[MERGE] Add support for `bzr pull --dry-run`
amanic at gmail.com
Thu Jan 15 21:18:58 GMT 2009
2009/1/5 Vincent Ladeuil <v.ladeuil+lp at free.fr <v.ladeuil%2Blp at free.fr>>
> Why don't you create PRE-QA *branches* so that you can still use
> pull and missing as they are meant to (between branches) ?
excellent idea, which is probably what we'll pursue. thanx!
> As they should, that's the purpose of 'missing', if you want to
> work with intermediate steps, additional branches sound simpler.
except that we have 25+components with each having their own sets of
but thanks to scmproj this should be manageable.
2009/1/2 Aaron Bentley <aaron at aaronbentley.com>
> I think this is not the right approach. It is an API break, because
> cmd_pull will not work with other branch or tree implementations. I
> also worry that it will be an ongoing challenge to make sure it does not
> write any changes to disk, or have any of the side-effects that pull is
> normally supposed to have.
> Instead of pushing the dry-run facilities into Branch.pull, I think it
> would make more sense restructure cmd_pull so that you can perform the
> output without actually
> performing the pull.
That makes sense.
Because I have other options now (separate branches or possibly `missing
-r`), this isn't really a priority for me now.
But since I did the effort of starting this and Aaron made the effort of
it, I can finish the job if anybody thinks its a worthy cause.
Can anybody see a use for this or should we scratch it from the roll?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bazaar