[MERGE/RFC] Userdoc Driven Design on the Bazaar 2.0 UI

[Marius Kruger]

2009/4/17 Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen at xemacs.org>:
> Neil Martinsen-Burrell writes:
>
>  > In Bazaar's bound branch or checkout model, the commit is made to the
>  > remote branch before the commit in the local branch.  I don't think that
>  > either ordering is at elevated risk of data loss (since the commit must
>  > succeed one place first)
>
> That's where you're mistaken.  In a checkout, there will be no commit
> at all if the push fails.  In a branch, the commit should not fail,
> and will be there to fall back on if the push does fail.
>
>  > but that committing remote then local preserves the idea that the
>  > local branch is a mirror of the remote branch.
>
> Once the push succeeds, I don't see that it matters.  With push-first,
> if the push fails, your work is at risk because it hasn't been
> committed, and the next thing you do (pull) is by definition going to
> change your workspace.

I agree,  since I've been bitten by this many times.
I'd rather have the commit succeed and the push fail,
so that I can deal with the merge separately.
So I'd like to see and use an auto-push  workflow rather than checkouts,
because doing an update is too risky in my experience.
(And things go crazy ATM if you are trying to this where you forgot
that you made some local beforehand too)

-- 
<| regards
U| Marius
H| <><