Bazaar Mercurial Plugin to access BitBucket

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Martin Geisler writes:

 > We've talked about allowing such trivial merges for normal changesets.
 > There is nothing in Mercurial that would break -- you can infact do it
 > right now if you use named branches.
 > 
 > The reason it's prevented right now is that it does indeed look like a
 > confusion: changeset B already has all the changes in 1, so merging with
 > 1 is redundant. I understand that you can use such an empty merge to
 > document that A and B were "separate" from the mainline (even though
 > they really wasn't...).

Ah, but usually they "really" are.  You work on them in a separate
workspace, on separate time, and may need approval from a gatekeeper
to push.  Even if you have a significant body of work, if it has been
reviewed (selected, detected, inspected, and nee-glected!) by several
experts, it may indeed make sense to summarize it in one log message.

 > It is always easy to construct small mini-examples that show bad
 > features. The real test is how the system works when you really use
 > it.

How many years Bazaar must exist before it's allowed to be an example
of "best practice"?  (Some of which *you* may think are unintuitive or
even yucky, but are valued, even required, by others in their workflows!)

Sure, in some cases such special cases end up making the main
workflows ugly or cramped.  I don't see how this is such a case.