What is a modification?

[John Arbash Meinel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

...
> 1.1.1 /     \ 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 \               \
> / 1.2.1 - 1.2.2 - 1.2.3

...

> E. DISCUSSION
> 
> So the question to you: do you agree with my expectation? Or would
> you really expect 1.2.3 to be included in the log, as it currently
> is? Or do you have yet a different expectation altogether, even if
> it coincides with mine or current behavior on this simple graph?

I think your analysis is reasonable, and it essentially means that we
need to pay more attention to context.

Specifically, if you imagine you were in the 1.2.3 branch, the graph
looks like:
   1.2.1
 /        \
1 - 1.1.1 - 1.1.2 - 1.1.3 - 1.1.4
 \                              \
   2       -   3       -          4

And you would like to see 1.2.1, 1.1.2, and 4. I don't think that
specifically contradicts what you've said, but it does mean that

'bzr log -n0' in the trunk branch will not show you revision 4 aka
1.2.3, but 'bzr log -n0' in the side branch will.

I'm a little concerned if 'bzr log FOO' sometimes outputs revision X
and sometimes doesn't, depending on which branch you run it in.

One option is to get rid of showing INHERITED revisions. Going back to
the original graph:

  1.1.1
 /     \
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8
 \               \     /
  1.2.1 - 1.2.2 - 1.2.3

In this case, we would certainly show 1.1.1, and we *might* show 3 if
it was an actual merge that produced new content.


I sort of like the idea that 'bzr log FOO' will show the same
revisions regardless of what branch it is in. But I'll definitely
agree that seeing 1.2.3 is confusing when looking over 'bzr log'.

On the other hand, it would be a bit surprising if you were in the
side branch, and did 'bzr log FOO' and did not see "1.2.3" (aka 4).

Maybe if we had better ways of annotating the output, to indicate
whether a given change was inherited vs original?

John
=:->


> 
> Please note that I'm not usually reading this list, so although
> I'll try to follow discussion here for the next few days, I might
> miss replies after a longer time of inactivity. If in doubt, please
> send me a copy to my personal address as well. I'll try to remember
> posting a summary of the discussion on
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bzr/+bug/842695 for future reference. If
> you are interested in the long-term development of this issue, feel
> free to subscribe to that report.
> 
> 
> Greetings, Martin von Gagern
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk6OprYACgkQJdeBCYSNAAPK9wCgvPSuQq95MX45p4S2OzlN9NaA
SRsAoKJBk5Icxl6q78ORs7zmK1t6p2xl
=WK3I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----