bzr pull vs. bzr update

[Juanma Barranquero]

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 04:03, Stephen J. Turnbull
<turnbull at sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote:

> 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.

OK, forget that I mentioned "commit --local"; that's not the point.
Fixing BzrForEmacsDevs isn't either, in fact. I don't want to convince
anyone to change it, I'm trying to understand the workflow it
suggests, and the consequences of such decisions.

So my questions are more about Bazaar docs: why does BzrForEmacsDevs
recommends pull for a checkout, while the docs seem to uniformly
suggest that update is the right command? At which point of
BzrForEmacsDevs something in the Emacs workflow makes pull preferable
to update? And where in the Bazaar docs there is a clear explanation
of pull vs. update, so a newbie can understand the trade-offs?

One thing I like in git's documentation (and trust me, there's not
much I like there), is that most command are explained in term of more
basic operations:

   git pull

   Runs git-fetch with the given parameters, and calls git-merge to
merge the retrieved head(s) into the current branch. With --rebase,
calls git-rebase instead of git-merge.

If you understand fetch and merge, you understand pull.

    Juanma