Bazaar Mercurial Plugin to access BitBucket

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org>
> Cc: ben+bazaar at benfinney.id.au,
>     bazaar at lists.canonical.com
> Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 02:31:22 +0900
> 
>  > Although, if you feel compelled to do ["bzr ci --local"] [to
>  > avoid interleaving commits], you should really make a local
>  > branch ;-)
> 
> That's not clear to me.  If used occasionally and it works for the
> developer, it seems to combine the best of both worlds: your --local
> commits are recorded in their development context, and when you do a
> regular commit they're serialized appropriately in the remote repo.

Yes, but so does working in a local branch, then merging to the bound
branch and committing.

> The defect I see in this workflow is that the user ends up making a
> lot of decisions: when to use --local vs. not, and when to do the
> merge from the remote to allow a commit to work, at least.  In other
> words, instead of letting Bazaar manage your workflow, you do it
> yourself.

Exactly.  Whereas with a local branch, you know when you should work
in a branch (when you do something that is complex enough to require
several commits) or on the trunk.

Also, a bunch of --local commits to the bound branch looks exactly
like a merge-commit (i.e. off-mainline commit) after you commit then
upstream.  So it shares this "disadvantage" with working on a local
branch.