[MERGE][1.16] Added directory structure and started translation of docs in Russian.

[John Arbash Meinel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Alexander Belchenko wrote:
> Aaron Bentley пишет:
> Alexander Belchenko wrote:
>>>> Two attachments seems to confuse BB and it picks plain diff instead of
>>>> merge directive.
> 
> BB picks the first attachment that is a patch or merge directive.
> 
> Neither one would be ideal for your merge request.  The patch cannot be
> automatically tracked, because it has no revision identifiers.  The
> merge directive has no patch, so it cannot be reviewed.
> 
> I think that choosing the patch is the better choice, FWIW.
> 
>> Yes, I agree with your explanation.
>> Just one question about merge directive:
> 
>> # Bazaar merge directive format 2 (Bazaar 0.90)
>> # revision_id: bialix at ukr.net-20090609095943-22m0k8k0sdk8qfmu
>> # target_branch: lp:bzr
>> # testament_sha1: 852f7316a37434c1bcfb0df544df6ca9719bfe3a
>> # timestamp: 2009-06-09 13:01:44 +0300
>> # source_branch: lp:~ru-bzr/bzr/doc-ru
>> # base_revision_id: pqm at pqm.ubuntu.com-20090609074559-97mi1flqtxzh6aj3
> 
>> I see there revision_id line and base_revision_id line.
>> IIUC this info could be used by bzr when someone will try to merge it,
>> right? If this is right, I'm not quite understand why you said:
> 
>> "The patch cannot be automatically tracked, because it has no revision
>> identifiers."

You had a plain "patch" which had no revision identifiers.

And a Merge Directive that *does* have revision identifiers, but had no
patch.

> 
>> Perhaps I misunderstood merge directives behavior, or your words related
>> only for BB?
> 
> 
> Aaron
>>
>>

John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkov2vkACgkQJdeBCYSNAAMniwCcCwzKi8+YgSRDT2i4wmcsdH9w
m4oAnikysc/z+E887f05fK2Hsnlgk+i1
=IVrU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----