bzr pull vs. bzr update

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Juanma Barranquero writes:

 > I mean, if you're taking the trouble to use a checkout to avoid local
 > changes and divergences, the fix for any such divergence is not using
 > pull, but recommending:
 > 
 >   - using bzr update
 >   - *never* doing commit --local
 > 
 > At least, that how I see it.

You are very welcome to see it that way.  But you already have more
knowledge of how these things can work than the target audience for
that document, enough to know how you think they should work, enough
to disagree with people with some experience with Bazaar.

IMO, you should do it your way.  But Karl and I don't even want to
mention commit --local in the documentation for new users if we can
avoid it.  RMS has been quite clear that he wants workflows that don't
require users to know anything at all about how Bazaar works.  Fine
and good, but Emacs developers will *not* stay at that level.  They
will learn about commit --local and uncommit and things like that,
they will use them, and we (as maintainers of that document) are going
to say, "Yer on yer own, buster, that's out of scope."  (Of course
given time and interest we'll help with alternative workflows, but
it's not going into that document.)