bzr pull vs. bzr update

John Arbash Meinel john at
Thu Dec 17 05:08:39 GMT 2009

Hash: SHA1

Juanma Barranquero wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 04:03, Stephen J. Turnbull
> <turnbull at> 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?

Because one of the authors (Karl) uses 'bzr pull' exclusively, and it
*can* be used (as long as you did 'bzr branch + bzr bind' rather than
'bzr co' to start.)

Though again, our standard documentation would say "use bzr co $MASTER;
bzr up". (And 'bzr pull' doesn't just work there because 'bzr co'
doesn't set the parent pointer because it expects you will be using

Specifically, 'bind' is an almost hidden command. I believe Robert has
expressed dislike that bind/unbind are exposed. *Personally* I would
rather make bound branches more first class than trying to make
heavyweight checkouts act like lightweight checkouts. (You can do a lot
more offline in a heavyweight checkout if you aren't trying to pretend
you don't have a local branch.) That said, I don't use heavyweight
checkouts anymore (I used to use them almost exclusively).

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -


More information about the bazaar mailing list