Weird failure of a merge to local branch

[Mark A. Flacy]

On 12/09/2010 08:23:59 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Aaron Bentley writes:
> 
>  > > That's true, but only until the next "bzr merge --pull" from the
>  > > parent branch.  Then the two branches are again on the same  
> revision.
>  >
>  > Yes, because that's pulling, not merging.
> 
> Both in English and in all other VCSes "pull" merges, rather than
> syncing.  (The fact that "push" is invariably restricted to a
> fast-forward by default is a child-proof cap; it's not part of the
> basic semantics.)  It's a real shame you guys didn't name "bzr sync"
> as "bzr sync", and make it bidirectional.  Is it too late to at least
> add that command as a standard alias?

"sync" implies that both ends match when the operation is complete;  
therefore, I do not believe that it is a good description of the  
operation.


-- 
Mark A. Flacy