[MERGE] Make dpush help/error a bit more generic

[Martin Pool]

2009/5/18 Russel Winder <russel.winder at concertant.com>:
> On Sun, 2009-05-17 at 16:54 +0200, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
>
>> I'm slowly getting used to the idea. We need to figure out what to do
>> with the --no-rebase option that exists for dpush in that case. What
>> about?
>>
>> bzr push --lossy                      (now: bzr dpush --no-rebase)
>> bzr push --lossy --rebase     (now: bzr dpush)
>
> If you are giving way then I guess the end is at hand, and I will just
> have to accept it ;-)
>
> However, one last time :  I am very worried about the push and dpush
> operations using the same command since they have very different
> consequences for the source as well as destination branches (when a
> rebase happens).  They do seem to me like different commands, not
> variants of the same command.  However the general feeling appears to be
> to go for options. So be it, I can live with it.
>
> I guess the problem that really needs a bit of airing is how to deal
> with the case where a dpush is (or the options to push are) used when a
> traditional push should have been used and vice versa.  The two cases
> are:
>
> 1.  A Subversion repository holding a Bazaar branch.  Traditional push
> should always be used since all the metadata is in the repository.  What
> happens if dpush is used?  Is there a way of recovering from the rebase
> if it happens.  Is there a way of re-adding the appropriate metadata
> afterwards?  Perhaps the command should check back with the user that
> this is really what they want?
>
> 2.  A Subversion repository that has no metadata.  "lossy push" should
> always be used on this repository otherwise lots of metadata will be
> added and this might annoy all the Subversion and Git users.  Indeed
> "lossy rebasing push" should probably always be used.  Again perhaps
> there needs to be some form of check that if traditional push is used on
> a repository with no metadata a request for confirmation with the user
> is undertaken.

Would it make any sense to make this only or primarily a per-location
option, rather than a command-line option?

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