Confusing "missing" command

[Martin Pool]

2009/5/12 Torsten Bronger <bronger at physik.rwth-aachen.de>:
> Hallöchen!
>
>    $ cd newer-branch
>    $ bzr missing --theirs-only ../older-branch/
>    Other branch is up to date.
>
> I find both the arguments and the outut of missing somewhat
> misleading (maybe it's a non-native-speaker issue).
>
> First, if I write "missing --theirs-only" I expect to get what
> *they* are missing rather than what they have what I don't have.

That's a good point.  I don't think we could change the order of the
existing options, but we could perhaps add newer, less ambiguous
synonyms.

However, more broadly, I'm not sure if the default behaviour of
missing, showing both sets of revisions one after the other, is the
best.  Perhaps we should change this into options to eg push or log to
show what's new and dispense with missing altogether.

>
> And secondly, if the other branch doesn't contain something new to
> me but instead, is lacking some of my revisions, the message "Other
> branch is up to date" is confusing.  It should be "You're not
> missing revisions from the other branch" or something like that.

I agree about that too.

-- 
Martin <http://launchpad.net/~mbp/>