Something like "darcs record" / "hg record" == Select changes to commit.
ben+bazaar at benfinney.id.au
Wed Jun 6 13:21:36 UTC 2012
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org> writes:
> >>>>> At some point Ben Finney wrote
> > Because of the above issue, I think Bazaar should not have the
> > behaviour you describe.
> It seems to me that Ben's opinion is clearly opposed to the general
> trend of Bazaar development, which is to allow users to develop their
> own workflows and have Bazaar manage them conveniently. If Ben doesn't
> like it, he can just resist the temptation to abuse it.
Is there a reole for Bazaar to be opinionated on the matter?
To make different workflows possible, but to make the more destructive
one (in this case, the one which encourages committing a working tree
that the hacker has never actually had on disk) more difficult than
doing it a more recommended way (‘bzr shelve’)?
It seems to me that this is the case with re-writing history, for
example. It's possible in Bazaar, but it goes against the grain and
isn't made easy. Bazaar is opinionated in this matter, and I think
that's good for users.
> As Pythonistas say, "we're all consenting adults around here."
Pythonistas also say “There should be one – and preferably only one –
obvious way to do it”. For the task at hand I think ‘bzr shelve’ is the
one obvious way to do it.
\ “It is clear that thought is not free if the profession of |
`\ certain opinions makes it impossible to earn a living.” |
_o__) —Bertrand Russell, _Free Thought and Official Propaganda_, 1928 |
More information about the bazaar