bzr wouldn't update checkout

[Neil Martinsen-Burrell]

On 2009-09-15 09:24 , Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 03:49:03PM -0500 I heard the voice of
> Neil Martinsen-Burrell, and lo! it spake thus:
>>
>> There may be discussion about the use of one command "update" for
>> these two distinct operations.
>
> There shouldn't be, because there aren't two distinct operations.
> "update" updates a working tree to match its branch, full stop;
> _where_ that branch is in a given case is all that varies.  Let's
> please don't continue to spread perceptions of unnecessary special
> cases.

Bound branches are necessarily a special case.  When there are bound 
branches, there are *two* branches involved and "its branch" begs the 
question of "which branch is my working tree up to date with?" (which 
was Tim's question in the first place).  A local branch (in the case 
where I am unbound) gives me one result with ``bzr update``.  But if 
that branch were bound I would get a different result from ``bzr 
update``.  update does not provide any feedback about *which* branch the 
tree is up to date with.  Perhaps this is a feeback issue that could be 
improved in the update command.

Another way to look at this is that ``bzr update`` in a bound branch 
does more than just updating my working tree to match the remote branch. 
  It does that, but it *also* pulls new revisions into my local branch. 
  I wholeheartedly endorse the goal of having fewer special cases in 
Bazaar, but there are some special cases like bound branches that do 
exist and do lead to confusion for users.

-Neil