bzr pull vs. bzr update
lekktu at gmail.com
Wed Dec 16 20:09:21 GMT 2009
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 20:44, John Arbash Meinel
<john at arbash-meinel.com> wrote:
> I assume this is because they don't do bind?
I don't understand. The instructions that I've quoted have
bzr bind sftp://<membername>@bzr.savannah.gnu.org/srv/bzr/emacs/trunk
for the trunk/ branch, and the pull is recommended for that same branch.
>> where "bzr pull" would force me to do a revert-and-merge-again.
> If you haven't committed, I'm pretty sure that pull will work here.
Ah. Karl said: " I use 'pull' because it will error if the dest tree
is not pristine [...]". Maybe I misunderstood him.
> When I was just trying it, I saw that
> it actually goes and tries to do a remote fetch, find revisions to pull,
> etc, only to find out you already have everything.
Indeed it does. That's why it is way slower than update.
> So my guess is that *today* update is faster than pull, but that is
> probably a bug in pull.
> If you are working in a checkout, 'update' is the recommended command.
This is the case in the recommended workflow for Emacs.
> For your specific use cases "bzr update" is equivalent to "bzr pull
> $MASTER". The divergence between them is mostly around what happens if
> you have local commits, etc.
May I suggest then that currently the docs aren't entirely clear about
the differences? (When using a checkout, of course.)
> There are other reasons as well. For example "cd checkout; bzr pull
> $NOT_MASTER". Will turn your master branch into $NOT_MASTER, as well as
> your local checkout. Which has valid use cases, but infrequent.
A further reason to recommend "bzr update" for trunk/.
More information about the bazaar