hi,<br>For me it makes sense to let missing fall back like: checkout branch -> parent branch -> pull -> push<br>(or something like that)<br>The way I use bzr it does happen that I might have pushed to a branch<br>
and afterwards do a missing (just to make sure) <br>and then it complains that it has no target branch.<br><br>I also miss --remember functionality in missing<br><br>regards<br>marius<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">
On 4/16/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Robert Collins</b> <<a href="mailto:robertc@robertcollins.net">robertc@robertcollins.net</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Robert Collins has voted -1.<br>Status is now: Vetoed<br>Comment:<br>I dont think makes sense: missing is used as the way to find out what<br>you have not grabbed yet - it shows 'unmerged/unpulled' revisions -<br>
using the push location is not intuitive or predictable. Using the<br>/bound/ location as a fallback might be nice, though I'm ambivalent on<br>that (I think an 'update --dry-run' or 'update --missing' might be
<br>nicer.)<br><br>What prompted you to create this patch?<br><br>For details, see:<br><a href="http://bundlebuggy.aaronbentley.com/request/%3C20070406161126.GW68920%40over-yonder.net%3E">http://bundlebuggy.aaronbentley.com/request/%3C20070406161126.GW68920%40over-yonder.net%3E
</a><br><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><br>I don't trust a Revision Control System with less than 5900 unit tests.